0 users logged onTips: BlueJerseyDotCom (AIM) |      

Log In
Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Congressman Garrett Opposes Bailout, Supports Ineffective Government

by: johnconstantine

Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 01:30:03 AM EST



I was a part of Dennis Shulman's campaign to unseat Congressman Garrett and now am collaborating with Blue Jersey contributors clammyc and Matthew Jordan on the Retire Garrett blog (retiregarrett.com). I was first introduced to bluejersey on Dennis' campaign and really enjoyed seeing the campaign's name in print so often here. I hope to stay involved with your blog as our campaign to unseat Garrett progresses.

I recently posted this abbreviated article on "Retire Garrett." It's about the Congressman's opposition to the bailout packages and his role in the current economic crisis:

Congressman Garrett's voting record since his 2002 election disputes the stances he has taken on the bailouts and economic crisis. His votes, speeches, and media appearances regarding the bailout and economy are dishonest.

The evidence speaks for itself:

   * Congressman Garrett has consistently opposed government regulation of businesses since his 2002 election. Whenever a bill was proposed that held businesses accountable for how they earned their money, Garrett voted against it. His philosophy has been to let businesses act according to their own rules.

             o The Congressman voted for decreasing government oversight of the Credit Rating Agencies. Many experts have blamed the lack of government oversight of Credit Rating Agencies for misleading investors, contributing to the collapse of Wall Street (Project Vote Smart).

   * Even though he has aggressively criticized the CEO's of failing Wall Street banks and Detroit auto companies, Congressman Garrett actually supported out-of-control CEO salaries and "Golden Parachutes."

             o The Congressman was a vocal critic of a bill that would have required publicly owned companies to fully disclose the salaries of their top executives as well as the payments made to departing executives, also known as "golden parachutes." (Los Angeles Times)

   * Incredibly, the Congressman supported a $4,700 pay raise for himself and the rest of Congress that will be enacted in the  middle of the current economic crisis, with taxpayers footing the bill.  Garrett already earns $169,300 annually, which is the average for the rest of Congress.

             o A bill co-sponsored by 34 Congressmen would have blocked the $4,700 pay raise from occurring. The bill had Republican and Democratic supporters, but Scott Garrett opposed it (Fox News; govtrack.us)

Scott Garrett claims he wants whats best for his constituents and the rest of American taxpayers. He says he did his best to hold Wall Street and Detroit accountable for their business practices. He has declared that he will fight to get the country out of the current economic crisis. Scott Garrett maintains there is a bridge in Brooklyn for sale at a bargain rate.

-Michael Simonson

johnconstantine :: Congressman Garrett Opposes Bailout, Supports Ineffective Government
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
don't forget (0.00 / 0)
when it came to the stimulus package last year (even though I didn't agree with the one that was passed), Garrett proposed his own stimulus package, which was everything that he wanted a stimulus package to have.

All corporate tax breaks and nothing to taxpayers and homeowners.

I shit you not.

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.


Just for fun.... (0.00 / 0)
* Congressman Garrett has consistently opposed government regulation of businesses since his 2002 election. Whenever a bill was proposed that held businesses accountable for how they earned their money, Garrett voted against it. His philosophy has been to let businesses act according to their own rules.

Isn't this 'consistent' with his being against the bailout?

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai


[ Parent ]
yes, although (4.00 / 1)
I am not sure why this was a reply to me as opposed to a comment to the diarist.

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

[ Parent ]
Good point. My bad. (4.00 / 1)


"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

[ Parent ]
I'm a bit confused (3.50 / 2)
While JohnC and you, Clammy C, are accurate in your oppo research, I hafta ask, where is this getting us, re: retiring Garrett?

JohnC's diary and your work at "Retire Garrett" have contributed greatly to what we know about what Garrett says and how he votes.

But, constituents are worried about now.  So, less time is spent on how Garrett helped us get into this mess than how we are going to get out of it. (I, of course, believe that understanding how we got into it will help craft a better way of getting  us out of it.)

And Clammyc, does anyone remember the measly $300 rebate/stimulus package?

All people can remember is the Hank handout to the investment concerns and banks, with no strings attached, and who hoarded the $$$ and did not ease the credit crisis.

For all the wrong reasons Garrett voted against it.  Now he is looking prescient, 'cause he's talking about the lack of conditions attached to the above mentioned handout. (Thank you, Barney Frank.)

What I would like to see is a close watch on how he responds to the new bailout, which seems to be not yet crafted.  Supposedly, it will be more tightly knit, aiding normal people, small businesses and states, with little pork.  Will he contribute to the discussion?  Will he vote for or against it?

Please, don't get me wrong.  I really thought that the research and comments would show people what a wingnut Garritt is, ie, not for his constituents.

But, maybe we were still in a bubble mode.  Maybe now that the bubble has burst, folks may be paying more attention to how Garrett has been screwing us and, most likely, will continue to do so.  


[ Parent ]
Pay attention to Ernie? Out here? In The Broccoli? (0.00 / 0)
Surely you jest!

As long as we are using the phrase "I shit you not" in this thread, I shit you not, most people out here hardly know Ernie Da' Wrench even exists. The ones that do con't know a damned thing about his votes, his contributors, his constituency(Certainly not the people of the 5th) or his face.

Ernie has done one hell of a fine job of making himself a myth, wrapped in mystery and surrounded by conundrum. People out here vote for him because he is on the Republican line and that's how they have been trained since birth and reinforced by the squawk radio they listen to as they commute every day.

You try telling them some of the facts about him and they go all glassy-eyed and slack-jawed, in deep danger of drooling on themselves.

They know they have deep problems out here and times have been hard and thin and are only getting moreso, but so many people out this way are so well and Pavlovoidally trained, they cannot do anything but vote straight Republican. It's in their DNA and we haven't had a mutagenic Democratic candidate out here in years.

The nom de plume has a long and distinguished history.


[ Parent ]
Ouch! (0.00 / 0)
But thank you for sharing your insights.  You are certainly more familiar with the terroir of Broccoli than most of the rest of us.

But I do think there are some folks out there who are not mouth breathers.  I just read that Mitch McConnell and John Boehner (mouth breathers, both) are enunciating ways to screw up the planned bailout and I fully expect thier comments to be repeated endlessly on the squawk radio you mentioned.

Still, folks do breathe and hear and see.  And if they find out that good bailout money, in terms of jobs and infrastructure improvement, are not coming to the 5th, we could just as easily blame the mysterious Mr. Wrench as the always attacked Mr. Corzine.

You know he will side with Boehner to delay any action, while people are losing thier jobs, health insurance and homes.

I do believe, in the midst of this depression, we can get somewhere.  I shit you not.


[ Parent ]
Tandalayo, You're Right.... (0.00 / 0)
.......of course I have been saying the same thing here, literally, for years.   Garrett is STILL a "stealth candidate" and most of his constituents STILL don't see him for what/who he is and don't actually understand why he's a piece of political shit.

Being able to communicate those realities in a "naturally" Republican district is the job of his opposition.   Getting that job done isn't not easy, but it is possible.  It requires truly aggressive, charismatic, energetic intelligent and creative opponents/opposition. (That means a BCDO run by RealDemocrats)  Clammyc's initiative of getting people together NOW to plan for 2010 is a good one.   We can't do this online; it will take real meetings and real strategies backed by real work and real resources.    Most of the people who are ignorant about Garrett are not "mouth breathers"; they are average Americans who don't have the "time" to become informed about politics and what's behind politics.


[ Parent ]
I agree completely--- (0.00 / 0)
while I agreed with Garrett's vote against the $500 checks, and the bank bailout, you are spot on that it was for the wrong reasons.

The past is the past - and sets the tone and narrative for why Garrett is bad for the district.  The big thing now is to not only stay on top of what he does but WHY he did it, said it or voted against it.

That is what I found interesting about his proposed stimulus package - even though I agreed with his vote against the rebates, this gave a clear indication of why he did it - and that looks real bad for taxpayers who have real problems now (and then).

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.


[ Parent ]
And I agree with you (0.00 / 0)
So, let's make a deal.  When Garrett starts yammering about the cost of any stimulus package (assuming it's OK), in chorus, we can say, "Look at what he proposed!"

And when there are complaints about even more deficit spending, we can point to Iraq and to "trickle down" tax cuts for the rich, both of which I assume he voted for (let me know if I'm wrong).  How did we get into deficit mode in the first place?

But, a larger question is how to get out the info.  I'm not an economist and I struggled to understand the worldwind events that began several years ago, but peaked last fall.  I don't expect people to understand credit default swaps or CDO's (collateralized debt obligations) or credit ratings by Moody's, S&P or Fitch.

But I do want people to understand that a lot of this came about because of lax regulation, not only of the mortgage market and those folks who "used therir houses as ATM's," but also the Masters of the Universe who enabled this debacle.

This is complex stuff, and we've got to figure out how to make it understandable to the non-political/non-economic wonk.

And we've got to figure out how to make the concept of going into even more debt palatable, ie, a good stimulus, to those who believe it will send us further down the tubes (cue TS).

I think there are enough people in the 5th who are hurting.  Ultimately its why those on the fence voted for Obama.  (McCain - We have an sound economy.)

How do we do this?  It seems as if Blue Jersey and Retire Garrett are good incubators for ideas and for research.

Some have suggested working to get more Dems elected to committee postions and local gov't.  Didn't work out by me, but that doesn't mean it won't work.

I'm stuck in the dead tree mode.  We get the Record and the Ledger (and NY papers) as well as 1 paid and 2 free weeklies.  In addition to local news we might need a "Congressional Beat" column and endless letters to the editor pointing out Garrett's pitfalls.

I don't know if people care about Cheney's admission that "enhanced interrogation techniques" supposedly kept them from hitting us after 9/11 or Obama's vote for the FISA bill.  (I care about them passionately.)

But maybe they care about saving their homes and their healthcare - and their jobs.  And that Garrett is not helping them.

Let me know what you think.


[ Parent ]
tough question.... (0.00 / 0)
that is the thing.  One of the things I try to do when I write is frame the issues in a way that is understandable, pointed and will resonate with the reader (the last is usually the toughest).

With the financial crisis, all many will see and hear is that he voted against the bailout and the rest is background noise - seems like people don't know or care whether it was an old law, relaxed regulations or something else that caused this.

What I would like to do is take his votes and speeches (there was one the other day that I am going to write up as well) to show how batshit insane he is; and that even a broken clock is right twice a day - but it still can't be relied on.

thoughts?

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.


[ Parent ]
For Starters (0.00 / 0)
I would refer to the diary Jason Springer posted regarding Paycheck Fairness and Lily Ledbetter.

Garrett Thinks It's OK to Discriminate Against Women.

Garrett Thinks It's OK for Women to Earn Less to Do the Same Work as Men.

Too wordy, I know, but you get the idea.

I remember how incensed I was when the Ledbetter decision came down.  Ruth Bader Ginsberg read the minority dissent  aloud (unusual).  She was shaking, she was so angry.  I haven't looked up the opinion, but will try to do so, because I remember that there was some brilliant reasoning and pithy quotes.

Todays NYT has a short but decent article about the above legislation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...

The opponents have said (as will Garrett) that it will provoke a flood of litigation and be a burden to employers.  Bush threatened to veto it, but he won't be around :-)

IMHO, one of the major points to get out is both bills have nothing to do with the "stimulus" package, which I am getting more and more to dislike.  Thus taxpayers will not be burdened and the deficit will not grow as a result.  It will put more money in women's hands, which will help their families and the economy.  (Of course, litigation could and would take years, but we won't dwell on that.)

Your turn....

PS - Ernie sent me an e-mail (OK, it wasn't just to me).  It superficially sounded good, till I got to the part about Reagan.  Oh yikes!  But we can discuss that at another time.

He also listed his media appearances, mostly on Faux News.  No wonder I don't know what he is saying because I can't bear to listen to that crap. I suppose I could get a transcript.

Then I went to his web site, which was even scarier than the e-mail.

Anyway, we have to stop meeting like this, in a tiny corner of Blue Jersey.  I always write a lot and it gets tough-to-read.


[ Parent ]
on those votes (0.00 / 0)
I was thinking of adding the word "sexist" because even if it was harsh, people will remember it.

Also, look at the post I did today on his comments re: the market "healing thyself".  Things like this need to be highlighted -too.

Oh...please don't apologize for being wordy or anything - I have only been in NJ for 2+ years and still trying to learn as much as I can so I don't sound stupid when I write.

If you want, email me anytime as well.


Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.


[ Parent ]
Re: on those votes (0.00 / 0)
You'll have to run "sexist" by some other people, because I have my own biases.  I've been in the feminist trenches for a long time now.  I studied Title VII in LS - interesting, Ginsberg brought some of the cases.

Anyways, we are now being told that we are in a "post feminist" age, whatever the hell that means.  Women (that would be white, educated women) now take for granted all the rights that my generation fought for.

I think the Ledbetter decision undermined that popular culture notion, though.

No matter that women are being discriminated against, yet and still, to many, the term sexist seems "quaint." As I said, try it out on others; I'm a bit too sensitive.

(One didn't have to like Hillary to understand that the MSM - think Tweety and Schuster in particular - and some opponents- blithely demeaned her - not on her positions, but because she was a woman.  Didn't create much of a ripple.)

I looked up the Ledbetter decision and dissent.  Ginsberg's writing, while well reasoned, is heady stuff and not good fodder for politics.  Ledbetter's personal story is more compelling.  

I read your diary and liked it.  I have some thoughts I'd like to add, but can't do it right now.


[ Parent ]
Featured Stories

Hate Ads? Make them disappear.
Subscribe:

Blue Jersey Essentials

 EDITORIAL DIRECTOR
 Rosi Efthim

 STAFF WRITERS
 Adam L a/k/a/ clammyc
 Bill Orr
 Deciminyan
 Hopeful
 Jay Lassiter
 Jeff Gardner
 Jersey Jazzman
 KendalJames
 Senator Loretta Weinberg
 the_promised_land
 Rosi Efthim

» About | FAQ | In the News
» 
» Tips:
» Front Page RSS Feed
» User Diaries RSS Feed
» Blue Jersey on Twitter » Blue Jersey on Facebook » Blue Jersey T-shirts
ADVERTISEMENT

Blog Roll

» Alicia Menendez
» Alive and Kickin
» Baristanet
» Blog the Fifth
» Capitol Quickies
» The Center of NJ Life
» Channel Surfing
» Daily Newarker
» The Englewood Report
» Frank Lobiondo Record
» Fred Snowflack
» Freedom to Tinker
» Garden State Grapevine
» ClearysNoteBook
» Herb Jackson
» Hoboken Journal
» Hoboken Now
» Jersey Blogs
» Jersey Jazzman
» Middletown Mike
» More Monmouth Musings
» NJ Domestic Partnership
» NJ Politics Unusual
» NJ Voices: Policy Watch
» On Our Radar
» The Opinion Mill
» Other Spaces
» Plainfield Plaintalker
» PolitickerNJ
» Retire Garrett
» Ruins of Trenton
» Senator Ray Lesniak
» Stovetop Diplomacy
» Sustainable Cherry Hill
» The Subversive Garden
» Teaneck Progress
» Trenton Kat
» We Don't Need Permission
» Xpatriated Texan

Cartoons

» M.e. Cohen
» Jimmy Margulies
» Drew Sheneman
» Rob Tornoe
Search




Advanced Search












Ads do not constitute
an endorsement
from Blue Jersey.



Blue Jersey Gear

Visit the Blue Jersey store. T-shirts, bumper stickers & more!


Shirts available in dozens of styles and colors.



Visit the Blue Jersey Store

Contact Us
» Editor: 
» Press releases: 
» Advertising inquiries: 
» Tips:
About Us
» About Blue Jersey
» Blue Jersey in the News
» FAQ/Usage
» 
» RSS Feed

Misc Stuff
» Blue Jersey Radio
» Blue Jersey on Twitter
» Facebook Group
» MySpace Page
» NJ Politics 101 Wiki
» Blue Jersey Podcast
» Screaming Carrot Award
» Contribute to Blue Jersey
7754 satisfied users, visits and 0 subpoenas served since Sept 28, 2005
© Blue Jersey, powered by the mighty SoapBlox.
Powered by: SoapBlox