0 users logged on

Tips: BlueJerseyDotCom (AIM) |

Garrett's SCHIP Numbers

by: rmfretz

Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 02:12:07 PM EDT

( - promoted by Juan Melli)

Is our Congressmen learning? Fretz gives Rep. Garrett a badly needed math lesson. Promoted from the diaries -- Juan

Cross-posted at Blog the Fifth

In the latest edition of the Official What Squad, Representative Scott Garrett shed the usual lies and focused on income levels as a way to justify his stance against the State Children's Health Insurance Program. A look at the numbers catches Garrett once again showing a willingness to distort the truth. Fortunately, there's this pesky thing called the Census Bureau that helps discredit yet another of Garrett's arguments.

rmfretz :: Garrett's SCHIP Numbers

Here's what Garrett said:

Right now the SCHIP program, as originally intended, was to fund indigent care for children, at what level? Two hundred percent of poverty. Ballpark figure, that's around $42,000 for a family of four; that's what is defined as poverty for that family. The medium income, that's the middle income in this country, for a family of four all across this country on average is about $48,000. So, $48,000 is the middle range.

While Garrett's $42,000 ballpark for 200% is accurate, where the misrepresentation begins is with the family of four median income. As reported by the Census Bureau, the median income for ALL households is $48,451, not a family of four. While intentionally misstating the middle is a lie in and of itself, this is a very important distinction as Garrett's argument progresses.

So, when they're talking about providing services above 200, 250, 300, well, 300 percent of poverty, that would put you at approximately $62,000 for a family of four. In New Jersey, we're at 350 percent of poverty; that puts you around $72,000 for a family of four.

Once again, these estimated figures are also accurate, but here's where one lie builds into the other:

So, by definition, they're telling us that they are not trying to create a program for the indigent and the poor in this country. By the very definition of the words they're using and the facts that are out there, they are trying to create an entitlement program for the middle class.

Using Census Bureau figures, 74% of states have a median income for a family of four above $62,000. In our own New Jersey, where SCHIP does get up to about $72,000, the median income for a four person family is $94,441. So the truth is, a family of four qualifying for the program is making $22,000 less than the midpoint. Actually, in the 37 states with median incomes above $62,000, qualifying families of four would be below the state's median by over $10,000 in 17 of them (In Connecticut they're $30,000 under).

In fact, there are only seven states where the median income for a family of four is below $60,000, and not one is at the $48,000 level Garrett cited as the middle. The closest to the $48,451 national composite median is New Mexico, and their family of four median is roughly $3,600 above Garrett's distortion. He's not even close to being truthful on this.

Garrett has used fear, Garrett has distorted his own record, and now Garrett has tried to use numbers to argue against SCHIP. To date, Garrett and his fellow obstructionists have no argument against SCHIP that stands up to the slightest bit of truth.

Tags: NJ5, Garrett, SCHIP, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Garrett's SCHIP Numbers | 9 comments

Garrett is Toast... (0.00 / 0)

....when his constituents actually see and understand what a fake, fraudulent phony prevaricating hypocrite he is.

As long as all the Democrats competing in the primary stick to shedding light into all the dark maleficent corners of Scott Garrett's immoral record a Democrat will win.

The people of the fifth CD deserve to know who and what their congressman is. When they do; they'll recoil in horror and wretch with disgust in sufficiently large numbers to turn him out of office.

Let the competition amongst Democrats be on the basis of who scores the most cutting points against Garrett.

Thanks to Fretz for this diary!

Let's "beam Scotty up", and out, of of Congress.

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 21:04:47 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

More great coverage (0.00 / 0)

More great coverage and analysis of what Garrett says and how it is opposite from the facts. Thanks

by: Jason Springer @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 21:06:06 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

What is the legal definition of a family of four? (0.00 / 0)

Does that definition include a wife, husband and two children, or is it one parent and three children? Just asking? I'd love to see Garrett looking for work in 2009. Cause, if it's one parent and three kids, that family is well below the 42,000 mark.

by: scarletbgonias @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 00:37:28 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Definitions (0.00 / 0)

From the Census Bureau:

Family:A group of two or more people who reside together and who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption.

I couldn't find that exact kind of data, but they put out the median by number of earners. The median for a single earning household in NJ is $54,596, two earners is $93,855.

by: rmfretz @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 03:18:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

As always... (0.00 / 0)

Thank you for your thoughtful and well documented analysis.

While reading Garrett's comments, I was struck by his use of the term "indigent." Although his sentence is a grammatical disgrace, I believe his invocation of the phrase "indigent care" was intentional.

As I understand it, SCHIP was enacted to provide health insurance for children whose families don't qualify for Medicaid, but who cannot afford private health insurance and/or cannot obtain it through their employment.

By definition, those who qualify for SCHIP are not indigent (read, impoverished).

Indigent has been used as a code word for "those people" who are stereotyped as lazy, shiftless, refusing to work, etc. And have skin colors considerably darker than most residents of the 5th CD.

So, there just may be a good number of people in the 5th who are struggling to get by and cannot afford health insurance for their kids.

But they don't want to be called indigent.

by: SmartyJones @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:59:48 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Great point (0.00 / 0)

That's a great point as well. Not only have they, and he parrots a lot of others, falsely rebranded the middle class they've rebranded the program.

More people need to see these figures, though. The last leg they were standing on was the middle income "entitlement" thing, and that's blown.

Garrett and his crew have been absolutely awful through this whole thing. He hasn't had one, not one, honest argument against the program. Just lies and fear.

Garrett may have been a politician of principal in the past, a lot of folks think that, but this year and this issue specifically have really shown what a total lack of integrity he has.

by: rmfretz @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 16:11:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

The Garrett Supine Position.... (0.00 / 0)

.....on SCHIP is the position of a prostitute selling themselves for money.

There is no truly legitimate (logic/fact based) argument against this program. The "ideology" is cynically concocted to fit the profit motives of the insurance industry.

Tragically, the echo chamber of right wing mass media ans a billion bucks worth of professional PRopaganda have convinced many otherwise decent Americans that SCHIP is tantamount to Communism...but that bubble of washed brains can be popped by letting a wee bit of sunshine (i.e consciousness) into the debate. Big lies are brittle.

If by some stretch, Garrett actually believes what he's saying re SCHIP; then he's not a whore....merely delusional.

In either case, he doesn't belong in the US House of Representatives.

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 16:29:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]