Our interest here, however, has to do with the Washington custom of earmarks, the practice of lawmakers adding appropriations to budget bills for favored projects in their state or district. In total, earmarks often represent billions of dollars in federal spending. Earlier this year, Rep. Steve Rothman, D-Bergen, proposed a $15 million earmark for Insitech. That's a lot of money for a non-profit trying to attract firms to do business with the army. The earmark has not been approved yet, but the new federal budget does not start until Oct. 1.
Here's where things get interesting. A spokesman for Rothman told the Daily Record last week that she didn't know anything about the earmark. InSitech's CEO said he couldn't talk about it, and spokesmen for Picatinny and Rep. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, R-Harding, who normally proposes earmarks for the base, said they were unaware of it.
How fascinating that a proposed expenditure of $15 million in federal money is so easy to lose.
That's a lot of money for no one to know anything about. There has to be more to this story, because something doesn't add up. And how does Frelinghuysen have a significant amount of money earmarked for his district and he has no idea bout it? That's effective representation.
It's Fred Snowflack of the Daily Record v. Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen. Snowflack saw this video posted on Frelinghuysen's website, featured where he talks about the number of uninsured:
That's right, if you break down the number of uninsured people by how they are characterized, they don't really count as not having insurance according to Frelinghuysen. Snowflack decided to pen an editorial taking Frelinghuysen to task. Here's how he started:
One way to diminish the magnitude of a problem is to pretend it doesn't exist. Republicans are doing that with healthcare, something that was plainly evident when Rodney P. Frelinghuysen talked to seniors last week at an assisted-living center in Morristown.
We'll continue below the fold as Snowlfack takes apart Frelinghuysen's argument and calls him out on his talking points.
As members of Congress headed home for break, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed out their version of the healthcare bill. They wanted to arm members of Congress with the facts, so they put out district by district breakdowns:
The Committee has prepared, for each member, a district-level analysis of the impact of the legislation. This analysis includes information on the impact of the legislation on small businesses, seniors in Medicare, health care providers, and the uninsured. It also includes an estimate of the impacts of the surtax that is used to pay for the legislation.
America's Affordable Health Choices Act would provide significant benefits in the 7th Congressional District of New Jersey: up to 18,200 small businesses could receive tax credits to provide coverage to their employees; 8,100 seniors would avoid the donut hole in Medicare Part D; 800 families could escape bankruptcy each year due to unaffordable health care costs; health care providers would receive payment for $30 million in uncompensated care each year; and 21,000 uninsured individuals would gain access to high-quality, affordable health insurance.
You can see the benefits by district for each member of Congress:
You can see the full bill text and a summary put out by the committee as well. If you support this bill, your member of Congress needs to know about it. If you call, get your member of Congress to take the pledge. Our representatives are being inundated with phone calls and emails opposing healthcare. We need people who support the healthcare overhaul to start putting some action behind the talk, otherwise we'll be counting the time until the next chance to do something about healthcare.
Republicans like to talk about fiscal responsibility. They have been known on more than one occasion to use the public's fear of deficits as a rhetorical bludgeon. What works for rhetoric doesn't always work for policy. New Jersey's House Republicans refused to vote for pay-go legislation this week. Instead, opting to tow the party line:
For too many years, reckless budgetary policies put our nation at risk and contributed to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Now, Congress has an opportunity to change the direction of our country's annual budgets by building strong statutory safeguards that limit the level of annual government spending.
The principle of "pay-as-you-go" is very smart and simple. Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere. Setting reasonable spending guidelines will guarantee a bright future for generations of Americans. Currently, our national debt stands at an unprecedented level of $11.2 trillion. This amount will keep rising each year we have an annual deficit. To eliminate our deficits we must spend within our means.
Apparently, the principle of spending as you go only works for Adler's Republican colleagues when they are giving speeches on the rubber chicken circuit.
I went through the FEC filings to see how our House members are fairing with their fundraising efforts. First here are some observations
Congressman Adler raised the most money in the 2nd quarter with over $518K, followed by Congressman Pallone and then Garrett.
Congressman Pallone has the most Cash on Hand by far and away with over $3.7 million. He has twice as much as the next member, Congressman Rothman who is followed by Pascrell and then Lobiondo.
Congressman Adler raised the most form individuals at over $267K, followed by Pallone, Garrett and then Rothman.
Congressman Adler raised the most from PAC's at over 250K, followed by Pallone, Lance and Frelinghuysen.
The members of the NJ delegation that raised more from PAC's than individuals were Congressmen Andrews, Payne, LoBiondo, Frelinghuysen, Pallone and Lance.
Congressional Quarterly has analyzed the roll call voting patterns of members of Congress since 1953. The three principal studies involve:
The frequency with which lawmakers vote with the president when he clearly indicates his preferences (Presidential Support).
The frequency with which they vote with their party, on occasions when a majority of Republicans oppose a majority of Democrats (Party Unity).
And the frequency with which they show up and cast "yea" or "nay" votes (Voting Participation).
And here are the NJ members on the House side:
Pres Support
Party Unity
Participation
John Adler
88
86
97
Rob Andrews
96
99
99
Rodney Frelinghuysen
58
80
99
Scott Garrett
15
98
97
Rush Holt
96
99
98
Leonard Lance
69
74
100
Frank Lobiondo
77
65
100
Frank Pallone
96
99
96
Donald Payne
88
99
96
Bill Pascrell
96
95
89
Steve Rothman
96
99
98
Albio Sires
96
97
97
Chris Smith
77
64
97
And the numbers for our Senators:
Frank Lautenberg
97
100
99
Bob Menendez
97
100
99
Lance and LoBiondo are two of only sixteen members to participate in 100% of the votes. Only thirteen other Republicans gave less support to President Obama than our very own Scott Garrett. Smith and LoBiondo are sixth and seventh for the lowest party unity with Lance ranking 22nd. Menendez and Lautenberg are both tops in party unity with 100% support.
Hate to pick on Rep. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, R-Harding, but I can not let this gem slip by. At a town meeting today in Roxbury, Frelinghuysen said that he'll never forgot where he came from.
Hmm. .. If I was born into an aristocratic family of wealth and privilege, I wouldn't forget either.
I don't know if Snowflack is going to be invited to the family dinner anytime soon.
Now, with President Obama's budget coming up for a vote, another opportunity has presented itself for these three "moderates" to show if they are truly moderate or if they are comfortable being out of the mainstream.
Maybe the no button got stuck, because rather than showing their moderate credentials, they opposed both the President's budget that passed and their own party's effort which failed:
Democrats are in blue, and Republicans are in red.
The budget passed 233-196 with a party line vote in opposition from the NJ delegation. There were also two Democratic budget alternatives that did not pass. At least the Democrats can say their members sometimes voted for Republican budgets and priorities under President Bush (even when we didn't agree with those votes). This vote is just further evidence that the lack of bipartisanship is a uniquely Republican attribute.
The Republicans couldn't even get the members of their own party to support their version of a budget. Lance, LoBiondo and Smith opposed that reckless effort, but Frelinghuysen and Garrett went along for that ride off the cliff. In fact, 38 GOP lawmakers voted against a plan supported by their own leadership. It appears the party of no can't even figure out how to say yes to their own plans anymore.
Fred Snowflack follows up where I left off the other day with Congressmen Scott Garrett and Rodney Frelinghuysen, calling them out for trying to get funding in the spending bill while talking out of the other side of their mouth saying they oppose spending. Snowflack even calls his article, "Their hypocrisy is politics as usual", and he has this to say:
A representative can not have it both ways.
If you oppose the bill, do not seek money from it.
If you want money from a federal spending bill, support the bill.
Frelinghuysen and Garrett are dismissing the bill with one hand and trying to grab money from it with the other.
You call that hypocrisy.
Yup, that's exactly what you call it. So the next time they're in a neighborhood near you, railing about the ills of federal spending, make sure to say hello and remind them of their double talk.
I'm not in the business of parsing earmarks to decide which projects are worthy of funding and those that don't make the cut. But I have a particular interest in our Representatives saying one thing and doing another. Take for example Scott Garrett and Rodney Frelinghuysen. Let's see what they have said about earmarks in the past. Jvoterinfo has this statement from Garrett's 2008 website, which is no longer live:
Scott Garrett remains a leading critic of frivolous earmarks.
"Rep. Garrett strongly concurs and has advocated tirelessly for the reduction in the overall size of the federal government," she wrote. "In this vein, he opposed the omnibus spending bill because it greatly increased government spending. He does believe his constituents deserve to receive as much benefit from their tax dollars as possible and is supportive of projects which benefit his constituents."
So he'll take credit for the projects while opposing them because increasing government spending is bad, unless its spending he specifically asks for? Moving on to Rodney Frelinghuysen and why he opposed the omnibus spending bill:
I rise in opposition to this omnibus appropriations bill for many reasons, not the least of which is that this bill adds even more spending on top of the stimulus package that we just passed.
Ok, a very principled stand, unless you dig deeper to find out that Rodney helped add $173 million onto that spending:
"As a member of the Appropriations Committee, it is my job to look after the needs of my district and state, especially when New Jersey ranks 50th out of the 50 states in federal taxpayer dollars coming back home," Frelinghuysen said in a statement Wednesday. "I will continue to support New Jersey priorities."
So while Garrett draws the line at defining frivolous, Rodney makes his stand on the borders with New Jersey earmarks. Either way, their rhetoric on spending rings hollow when they help contribute to the same process they try to convince the voters they oppose. Even the president of the NJ taxpayer alliance recognizes the hypocrisy of their arguments:
"It's interesting the way the system plays out," he said. "Everybody rails against it, then when the truck backs up with the money, everybody wants to get a piece of the pie, too. ...
They should just say they support earmarks. The question then becomes, how should you decide which ones to support and how do you best inform the citizens of that decision making process.
With the help of the New Jersey delegation, the party of no kept their streak in tact today opposing a bill that would help families stay in their homes by avoiding foreclosure:
Democrats are in blue, and Republicans are in red.
The measure passed 234-191. There were seven Republicans in Congress who supported the bill, none from New Jersey. Here's a description of the intent of the bill they opposed today:
To prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability.
Three New Jersey districts are in the top 50 district nationally for 2009 foreclosures: NJ-03 has the 13th most, NJ-01 the 14th most, and NJ-02 the 44th most. What's more, the 2009-2012 numbers project an even bleaker future. This mortgage relief bill is badly needed.
So the question arises: Will NJ Republicans vote for a mortgage relief bill to help thousands of families struggling in their districts? Or will they continue to kowtow to Rush Limbaugh and sell out their voters? Time will tell, but don't count me among the optimists.
So with his district ranked 44th in 2009 foreclosures, Frank "the moderate" LoBiondo turned his back and walked the party line. He was joined by Leonard Lance, Chris Smith, Rodney Frelinghuysen and of course Scott Garrett. Keep making New Jersey proud guys.
Heads-up: NJ-03 is the congressional district with 13th most foreclosures in the nation, NJ-01 is right behind at 14th, and NJ-2 clocks in at 44th. - - promoted by Rosi
In the midst of an economic crisis, many families are facing layoffs, credit problems, and an inability to make ends meet. Still more families, a massive number, face foreclosures that threaten to turn them out on the street.
If you're a responsible governing party, you would have legislation to help families, and the Obama administration and House Dems have put forward HR 1106, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act. This mortgage relief bill will provide desperately needed aid to families facing foreclosure, but you'd be kidding yourself if you thought the party of No would get behind such a proposal. With the House expected to vote on this bill in the next week, it's sobering to look at foreclosure estimates by congressional district from the Center for Responsible Lending:
District
Projected Foreclosures ('09)
Projected Foreclosures ('09-'12)
# Homes Saved by HR 1106
NJ-01
10,658
35,483
3,505
NJ-02
8,922
29,706
2,934
NJ-03
10,797
35,948
3,550
NJ-04
8,346
27,786
2,744
NJ-05
7,331
24,408
2,411
NJ-06
6,560
21,840
2,157
NJ-07
5,750
19,145
1,891
NJ-08
5,075
16,898
1,669
NJ-09
4,938
16,441
1,624
NJ-10
4,835
16,097
1,590
NJ-11
5,986
19,930
1,968
NJ-12
5,768
19,205
1,897
NJ-13
2,360
7,859
776
Three New Jersey districts are in the top 50 district nationally for 2009 foreclosures: NJ-03 has the 13th most, NJ-01 the 14th most, and NJ-02 the 44th most. What's more, the 2009-2012 numbers project an even bleaker future. This mortgage relief bill is badly needed.
So the question arises: Will NJ Republicans vote for a mortgage relief bill to help thousands of families struggling in their districts? Or will they continue to kowtow to Rush Limbaugh and sell out their voters? Time will tell, but don't count me among the optimists.
The stimulus bill is about to become law with no Republican votes in the House and only a handful in the Senate...
No legislation is perfect, but there are a lot of things in the bill that will benefit New Jersey, including tax credits for homebuyers and more Medicaid reimbursement. To the Republicans who voted no, just what would they do?
So our Republican Congressmen made a statement by voting no. Fantastic. I hope they feel all warm and fuzzy inside at the stand they made, while people continue to lose their homes and struggle to get by. What would they need in a bill to get them to say yes? Apparently helping homebuyers, building infrastructure, fixing the AMT tax, lots of tax cuts, and helping the states wasn't enough.
Even when men and women had the same job title in the same department, some women had lower base and overtime pay.
The 82 male Sheriff's Officers in the Sheriff's Department were paid an average of $83,772 in 2008. The 18 women with the same title were paid $78,513 and made about 50 percent less in overtime than the men.
But the women Sheriff's Officers had 14 percent more seniority than their male counterparts. Women had an average of 3,300 days working for the county; men had 14 percent less time at 2,800 days.
The Ocean County Freeholders have some explaining to do. I can't wait to see how they dance around and try to offer a justification for this. Not surprisingly, the decision makers are all men. The only woman is county prosecutor Marlene Lynch Ford, who is appointed by the governor. So not only don't women hold the county offices, but when they do get hired by the county, they make almost a
quarter less than their male counterparts. Contrasting the lack of representation, is the fact that Ocean County is in fact 52.52% female, the highest percentage of women in the state.
It's a good thing our Republican Congressmen LoBiondo, Garrett and Frelinghuysen were overruled in their opposition to Ledbetter, you know that legislation which gives women equal pay, because it's sorely needed in Ocean County government. I look forward to the full story in the APP tomorrow.
Well look at how Pete Sessions, the Chair of the NRCC is advising his members to fight the stimulus package. I don't know if this is the most effective messaging ever (Emphasis mine):
"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," Sessions said during a meeting yesterday with Hotline editors. "And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."
Nope, of course he's not saying the Republicans are like the Taliban. He's just saying Congressional Republicans will study the Taliban to develop their strategy. As head of the NRCC, is he advising Lance, LoBiondo, Smith, Frelinghuysen and Garrett plan to sign up for insurgency training? Is the NJ GOP planning to study the Taliban for tips and tricks too? So much for toning down the rhetoric.
Some of our New Jersey Congressmen have a "moderate" or "bipartisan" reputation, at least in the press. With the Obama administration going to great lengths to court them, I think it's worth keeping track of how they vote on the major bills. So, inspired by Nate Silver's graphics, here is a chart of how our five Republicans are voting on what I consider major bills. Blue takes the administration or Democratic side, red opposes.
We only have five big votes so far: Expanding Children's Health Insurance (SCHIP), the Stimulus package, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, reforming the TARP program, and releasing the second $350 billion of TARP.
As you can see, so far Garrett is living up to his extremist reputation. Overall the New Jersey Republicans seem to have little interest in solving the economic crisis with government action.
Democrats are in blue, and Republicans are in red.
Regarding the Economic recovery vote, it passed with absolutely no Republican support in this new era of bi-partisanship by a 244-188 margin. Americans United for change ripped the NJ GOP opposition to the plan, leaving out Scott Garrett who also voted no:
Thanks to the extraordinary leadership of President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, the U.S. House has acted quickly and decisively to move forward this major economic recovery plan that will put millions of middle-class Americans back to work and back spending money again. This was perhaps the most historic vote in Congress since the vote to authorize the war in Iraq. Yet, amid a crippling economic recession that has cost millions of Americans their jobs and threatens millions more if nothing is done, Representatives Frelinghuysen, Lance, LoBiondo and Smith all chose to put partisan politics and the failed policies of the past over the struggling families they represent. President Obama reached out to Democrats and Republicans alike and set aside partisanship and ideology to craft a bold measure to get America back to work. It's sad that these Representatives are still clinging to petty partisanship and the same failed, well-worn ideology of Bush 'trickle-down' economics that got us into this mess to begin with.
The delay of the digital transition vote failed by a vote of 258-168. It wasn't a party line vote and in NJ, Congressman Adler voted against, while Congressman Lobiondo voted for. Congressman Payne did not vote on the bill. I'm not sure what the delay would have done, it's not like there is going to be more money available in four months.
Frank LoBiondo once again took a ride with Scott Garrett and Rodney Frelinghuysen opposing fair pay for women. I'm sure women are very thankful for the lack of support:
Adler
Andrews
Holt
Pascrell
Payne
Rothman
Sires
Lance
Smith
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
LoBiondo
Democrats are in blue, and Republicans are in red.
Frank Pallone voted for the bill on Jan 9, but did not vote this time. Both Senators Menendez and Lautenberg supported the legislation in the Senate. Capitol Quickies shed some light on why they needed a second vote in the House:
The House of Representatives on Tuesday had to vote a second time on the bill, after the Senate broke out from the bill a more controversial, related proposal the House had lumped in that would allow women to get compensatory and punitive damages if the equal-pay law is violated.
It now heads to President Obama's desk for signature.
"Soon we will have a new president who has committed himself to reforming our nation's health care system so every American can access affordable and quality health care." said Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J. "The bill we are considering today makes a down-payment on that promise."
This bill was passed without a veto threat looming as was the case with the previous administration. Maybe that was motivation for Rodney Frelinghuysen to switch his prior no vote to support healthcare for children. Here's how they voted on this one:
There has been alot of talk about bipartisanship and changing Washington, but to do that Republicans are going to need to cross the aisle and support Obama initiatives. Obama has already also acknowledged the need for GOP support to advance his agenda.
With five Republican members of Congress, there are a few options for GOP support from New Jersey. I feel safe in saying it's unlikely that Scott Garrett or Rodney Frelinghuysen can be counted on as regular Obama swing votes. That would leave us Chris Smith, Leonard Lance and Frank LoBiondo as potential targets.
LoBiondo, R-2nd, opposed President George W. Bush on 60.8 percent of House votes, a frequency that was seventh-highest among all 535 members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, according to Congressional Quarterly's annual survey. Another New Jersey congressman, U.S. Rep. Chris Smith, R-4th, ranked second among Republicans opposing the president.
LoBiondo expects to be courted:
"I think you'll see President-elect Obama reaching across to moderate members of the House, and I think Congressman LoBiondo certainly fits that bill," LoBiondo spokesman Jason Galanes said.
He'll certainly have plenty of opportunities to show just how moderate he is in the next four years. Lance will be in the same boat. He has a reputation as a moderate and will be given many chances to prove it. He failed his first test and his votes will certainly be scrutinized closely because he ran as someone who could reach across the aisle. Lance will also be in the middle of action on the Financial services committee. We'll see what influence he has, if any, working across the aisle to develop policy.
Who do you think will be the most likely target as an Obama swing vote and why?
