A comment over on Blue Jersey about the state of our Congressional District really raised an eyebrow and got me thinking. The comment was this:
I'll give you another example - I live in NJ-5, Scott Garrett is my congressman. It is looking more and more like the county parties aren't going to put ANYONE up - at a time where republican turnout will be higher and more motivated than the past 5+ years.
This is a sad statement on our politics in their current state. Gerrymandering has gotten to a point where folks like Garrett can serve until they are redistricted out or retire. His only threat real and perceived is in the primary, when the smallest fraction of the electorate makes all the decisions. Democrats won't run anyone because they don't want to spend the money. Politics is a business.
This reality undermines the entire intent of a Representative being accountable to their constituents. Forget the fact that the Democrats can't get someone who believes enough in their values to step up. With the Democrats punting, there's no one to bring up relevant questions for voters to ponder at the ballot box. Why vote against small business tax cuts repeatedly? Why vote against balancing the budget repeatedly? Why vote against extending unemployment benefits repeatedly? Why vote to hasten Medicare's insolvency?
Granted, Garrett is by all accounts safe in this seat. In fact it hasn't really been close on election day in a very long time. That said, Democrats failure to supply voters with any kind of alternative abdicates their fundamental responsibility in our already flawed two party system.
Live in the 5th congressional district? You can get reporting at Blog the Fifth you won't find in your newspaper, plus context on some of the nutty, nutty things your congressman does, plus opportunities to join up with efforts to make a change there. - - - Promoted from the diaries by Rosi. Cross posted from Blog the Fifth
Representative Scott Garrett finally explained why he voted against extending unemployment benefits and the first time home buyer tax credit:
So, in sum, we have a program rampant with fraud, which gives taxpayer dollars to people who don't legitimately qualify, and fails to appropriately credit the individuals that do qualify. It's clear that employees of the IRS were aware of the problems with claims process for this program, as the inspector general found 53 cases of IRS employees filing "illegal or inappropriate" claims for the credit. In its current form, this program costs taxpayer about $1 billion a month and is expected to cost $15 billion for the year. Rather than terminate this program, Congress voted on November 5 to expand the program to homeowners looking to buy a replacement principle residence. How many more four-year olds will fraudulently receive taxpayer money under this program before Congress realizes this is a terrible idea?
Voting to expand this program would have been irresponsible of me, and an abdication of my responsibility as a guardian of taxpayer dollars. The Homebuyer Tax Credit Program was a poison pill to otherwise well-intended legislation.
It bears repeating that Garrett was one of 2.7% of the House to vote no on this bill, so it hardly was a poison pill.
Promoted by Jason Springer: An interesting exchange with Congressman Garrett talking healthcare and more great work by rmfretz keeping an eye on the Congressman at Blog the Fifth.
Representative Scott Garrett chats with Fox 5 about his vote against the health care bill. Garrett talks almost exclusively about Medicare Advantage as his reason, which as I've written before can currently charge taxpayers up to a 40% mark up on services.
It's good to see Garrett using the full term, as opposed to earlier, but I still can't understand how someone who claims he is a fiscal conservative can defend taxpayers paying up to 40% more than something actually costs for anything.
Although the House bill is dead in the Senate, taking the 40% mark up will be out no matter what bill comes back to the House for reconciliation.
While Garrett claims the program will be taken from those enrolled, nothing in the bill eliminates the program. What it eliminates is the 40% mark up. Now should insurance companies only participate due to their ability to gouge taxpayers, one could see them cease to offer the program, as the Chief Actuary for Medicare and Medicaid noted.
That aside, Garrett's interview is interesting in that it shows his true feeling on the Bill and overhaul in general.
Promoted from the diaries by Rosi, who is represented in Congress by Leonard Lance, damn it.
This is an embarrassment. Last week Congressman Joe Wilson (Rude-SC) heckled the President of the United States while Mr. Obama was speaking in front of the United States Congress at the invitation of the United States Congress.
Today the United States House of Representatives was presented with a vote that said it disapproved of Joe Wilson for heckling the President when he spoke in front of Congress at the invitation of Congress.
The entire NJ Republican delegation voted against the mild rebuke. That's Rodney Frelinghuysen, Scott Garrett, Frank Lobiondo, Leonard Lance (the "moderate"), and Chris Smith who apparently think it is OK to heckle the President.
I mean, here is the text of the resolution that they voted against:
Whereas on September 9, 2009, during the joint session of Congress convened pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 179, the President of the United States, speaking at the invitation of the House and Senate, had his remarks interrupted by the Representative from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson; and whereas the conduct of the Representative from South Carolina was a breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House:
Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the House of Representatives disapproves of the behavior of the Representative from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, during the joint session of Congress held on September 9, 2009.
I mean, holy shit but that is the most mealy mouthed resolution that could possibly be passed. Wilson was wrong in his behavior, and he was wrong in his facts. What the hell do these Republicans think is appropriate behavior if embarrassing the United States on national TV is OK with them?
And these morans are members of the same party -- the REPUBLICANS -- who equated opposing President Bush with treason. Shit!
The fact is that Wilson embarrassed the House, the Senate and the Country. All the resolution says is that he degraded the processions, and that the House disapproves of that kind of action.
But Frelinghuysen, Garrett, Lobiondo, Lance and Smith can't bring themselves to break from the national GOP and make this simple statement?
To paraphrase the Dixie Chicks, I'm embarrassed these idiots are from the state of New Jersey.
With the GOP Congressional caucus in full-on goosestep mode, it's entirely possible you've wondered what led to all this chronic naysaying? I've been curious about that myself, and came up with this hypothesis.
PoliticsNJ reported that ceramic cup maker and Republican Roger Bacon filed yesterday to compete in the 5th District Democratic primary. I guess this means that even Republicans hate Scott Garrett!
A while back I wrote about Representative Scott Garrett sending the vast majority of the earmarks he requested out of district. After watching Bill Moyer's Expose covering investigative reporter David Heath's efforts to compile the first full accounting of earmarks in a Defense Appropriations bill, I decided to check out Heath's efforts.
Of course I looked at Garrett's page. So here are the questions:
Who were the $2.5 million in mystery earmarks of which you were the only sponsor sent to?
What process was used to determine these mystery earmarks were in the best interest of taxpayers in our District?
What projects within the District did you not attempt to fund as a result of going after these two mystery earmarks knowing you were approaching the average amount of earmarks for a Republican House member?
If either Garrett or his staff would like to provide answers for publication you can send me an e-mail or letter.
Most reasonable people believe that the House Budget Committee, on which Scott Garrett (R-Wantage) serves, and the Bush administration -- whom, it may also be said, Garrett serves - have been pretty irresponsible with the federal budget since Garrett was elected to Congress in 2002. The national debt has skyrocketed, future generations imperiled, etc...
Garrett, on the other hand, professes his innocence and continued zeal for responsible fiscal policies.
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.
It appears that Garrett's Bergen Record op-ed did not quell the gathering storm in the fifth district. The Humane Society Legislative Fund recently alerted it's members that a rally is planned for Noon on Wednesday, September 12.
Garrett may think that an op-ed will explain his opposition to the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act, or as he calls it the "federal dog-fighting law", but it doesn't sound like animal lovers are going to buy it. I don't have much advice for Garrett, he'd better hope that animal haters outnumber animal lovers in his next election.
Here is the email alert from the Humane Society Legislative Fund.
Rally on Wednesday, September 12 to Protest Rep. Scott Garrett's Vote to Give Dogfighters a Free Pass
Dear Friend,
Please join the Humane Society Legislative Fund and concerned animal advocates to protest Rep. Scott Garrett's recent vote to give dogfighting a free pass.
When: Wednesday, September 12, 12:00-1:00 pm
Where: Rep. Garrett's Paramus District Office: 210 Route 4 East Suite 206, Paramus, NJ 07652 map
In the wake of the Michael Vick dogfighting case, you may wonder why Rep. Garrett recently sided with dogfighting interests and voted against the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act. This legislation upgrades penalties for illegal transportation of fighting dogs -- one of the crimes Vick has admitted to -- from misdemeanor to felony penalties.
The vast majority of members of Congress supported this legislation to put a stop to precisely the type of behavior that Michael Vick admitted to -- participation in a multi-state network of cruel and degrading dogfighting activities. Humane organizations and more than 400 law enforcement agencies supported the federal bill, yet Rep. Garrett showed his true colors by giving dogfighters a free pass.
I hope you can make it to this rally. If you have friends or family in Rep. Garrett's district, please share this email link with them. Thank you for all you do for animals.
Rep. Garrett has been leaning on his states' rights mantle since he was elected to office. It's good to see the Humane Society Legislative Fund taking him to task on his animal fighting vote. The column below was published in the Bergen Record yesterday.
Garrett continues to claim that he opposed this bill because it was an unnecessary addition to existing state laws. What he fails to mention is: 1. He actually cosponsored this bill before voting against it; 2. The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act didn't create new laws for animal fighting violations, it merely strengthened penalties. If Garrett really expects to explain his way out of this vote he better find a stronger argument.
This is reprinted below with the permission of the Humane Society Legislative Fund.
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 www.hslf.org.
Well, Representative Scott Garrett has posted again over at Townhall.com. This time he writes about his opposition to the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It's an interesting read, and a prime example of rhetorical spin at it's finest if you're a fan; or worst if you just want politicians to tell it like it is. You can read the complete text here.
For those not having the time to read the whole thing, here are a few inaccuracies right off the bat:
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 2.1 million people who are currently covered by private health plans will be forced into this nationalized health care.
I haven't done this in a while, cross-posted at Blog the Fifth
In yet another classic example of saying something during the campaign and voting differently once down in Washington, Representative Scott Garrett joined 33 other Representatives in opposing the "COPS Improvements Act of 2007." The Bill restores many of the funds stripped from community policing programs over the last few years, and establishes new grants for anti-terrorism training for officers, training grants for veterans to join law enforcement, and technology upgrades.
With Representative Scott Garrett's tour of some of the flood damaged towns in the Fifth, he reports he's seen first hand how hard hit the area is and how extensive the damage has been. I have little doubt his staff is going to do everything they can to help residents get FEMA aid if the disaster area declaration comes down. His staff always receives high marks for fulfilling this aspect of their duty, it's a shame Garrett cannot have the same said about him.
At issue is not this particular flood, there's really nothing that could have changed the outcome of this particular storm. However, over a month ago Garrett voted against providing funding for projects to prevent the overwhelming damage suffered in our District, state and region. While a storm like we just had will cause flooding, the extent of the damage would be lessened with a modern sewer system. With his vote against Representative Bill Pascrell's bill to provide funding to upgrade combined sewer systems, Garrett in essence was voting in favor of more extensive than necessary flood damage.
This is cross posted at Blog the Fifth. I'd like to read this study Garrett's citing, but could use some help finding it
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.
See where your Congressman is in the hierarchy! I know we in the 5th and 7th CD can sleep well knowing that our Representatives might be doing something positive for us if they had the will and if they were able! (I would hope that Linda Stender and whoever challenges Garrett cites their current "impotence".)
Ironically, Frank Lautenberg would be a lot higher in seniority had he not retired for 2 years. I would expect Senator Menendez to rise quickly in the next few years as long as the Senate Democrats maintain and increase the majority.
WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers clashed today on whether shareholders should have a louder voice in approving executive pay, while a top regulator scolded companies for failing to deliver the clear-cut pay disclosures now expected by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
OK. So something needs to be done about executive pay disclosure. Not about the amount, mind you, about the fact that compensation isn't adequately reported to shareholders.
The SEC action "makes it easier to go forward," said Frank, who has argued that shareholders have the right -- and the wisdom -- to have a say in what's appropriate pay for their executives.
"To have a say." We're not talking about putting a cap on CEO pay here. (That's an argument for another time.) All that's being said is that shareholders have a right to know. If a representative put their constituents first, this would be a no-brainer.
With it's recent ruling, the New Jersey Supreme Court took a major step forward in defending the defenseless. By striking down a number of eligibility restrictions that served as barriers for the developmentally disabled and their families to receive care, our fair state will take a major step forward to providing for those most in need of help. The question now becomes one of money, priorities and morals.
I have been following the story that broke Sunday, in The Washington Post, regarding the level of care and support, or lack thereof, that our wounded veterans have been receiving at Walter Reed Medical Center. I am angered, appalled, disgusted, and enraged. But I am not shocked. On the contrary, I am not surprised one little bit.
It's a hell of a feeling, and I have more feelings to go.
I'm not always on the same page as the US Chamber of Commerce, but you'd think "anti-tax" zealot Ernie Garrett would be, especially when it comes to tax relief legislation. Maybe it's only tax cuts for the wealthy that he supports and we're on our own. (Unless, of course we want to make a decision about how we live our lives. I digress...)
