As pointed out by our friends at Down With Tyranny, a vote was held yesterday in the House with respect to the National School Lunch Program - a program that is even more necessary now given the state of the economy:
H.Res.362. It expresses the House's support for the goals and ideals of the National School Lunch Program and "recognizes that our pupils deserve access to high-quality, safe, and nutritious meals in school." It passed 403-13, every Democrat and 155 Republicans, including the entire GOP congressional leadership voting in favor.
And guess who was one of the 13?
Let's look at some numbers. There are approximately 200,000 children living in Bergen, Sussex and Warren Counties. Of that, there are 12,400 children in Bergen who are on reduced or free lunch programs due to need, over 2,300 more in Sussex County and another 1,900 in Warren County. That is one out of every twelve children in these three counties who can't afford a decent meal and rely on the National School Lunch Program.
And this is too offensive for Scott Garrett to support.
Garrett is very good at explaining away his unconscionable votes with a caveat such as "I agree in principle but..." or "I would have supported this, but....". Quite frankly, actions speak louder than words. Time after time and vote after morally reprehensible vote, Garrett shows where his loyalties lie. This is about struggling families. And just as his vote against clean drinking water shows, Garrett can't keep explaining away votes that show a pattern of disdain for the health and welfare of those in his district that he is supposed to represent.
What makes this worse is the fact that the BCDO is choosing to give Garrett a pass without even so much as a challenger to a man whose actions and record are nothing short of abominable.
Say what you want about former BCDO Chairman Joe Ferriero, but he knew how to rack up Democratic wins in Bergen County. As for his successor, Michael Kasparian, 2009 didn't look too good but let's not give him all of the blame for the loss of two freeholder seats and a near draw between Christie and Corzine in the backyard of the very popular Democratic Lieutenant Governor candidate. After all, he did have to come in on the heels of a cloud of corruption and it didn't go away (probably still hasn't). That being said, Kasparian did say that he was not going to be the same type of leader as Ferriero and would have more transparency in the BCDO. I assume he also had a goal of restoring the tarnished image of the BCDO.
Which makes the information I have been hearing that much more puzzling as well as maddening.
Now, knowing that Scott Garrett is by far one of the most out of step Congressmen, tucked safely in a district that is hand drawn for a Republican to hold on the Congressional level and the desire for the Bergen Democrats to lay as low as possible, I can understand a level of concern, given the county and statewide election results last November. But I have heard from at least four different people in four different parts of the county who have spoken to three very well known and high profile people high up in the BCDO - all of whom have indicated the chosen strategy of the BCDO (and I am paraphrasing):
We think it would be best to not run a challenger to Scott Garrett in the hopes that Republican voter turnout will be depressed and our local candidates will have a better chance of winning
Where to even begin here? How about the following reasons why this is quite possibly the absolute dumbest and worst political strategy I have seen in a good long time:
Republicans are more motivated this year than in the past 6 years. To think that they won't be coming out stronger and hope they will forget there is an election is fantasyspeak;
Having no Congressional candidate will not "free up motivated volunteers" to help with, for example, Freeholder, County Executive, County Sherriff or other lower tier races - local races where quite frankly, most people don't know or care enough to get involved;
Voter turnout in an off year (i.e., non-Presidential) is low as is - without giving the base a real reason to vote - and voting just for downticket races is hardly reason enough to get the full base out to vote - will only depress Democratic turnout further;
Sending a signal that you don't even want to field a top of the ticket candidate is a message of fear - a losing message. This will likely (1) depress the base vote further, (2) depress the motivated activists who would otherwise vote for an entire ticket, tell their friends and neighbors to do the same, volunteer and talk up the race and (3) create a backlash and resentment among those who know the damage that Scott Garrett does to the people of this district; and
Give the impression that an attempt to save their own personal political lives is more important than helping those constituents who they hope will elect (or re-elect) them to serve.
What message does it send to me - a motivated activist who has spent the better part of my four years living in New Jersey working to oust Garrett? That I should not only suck it up and let Garrett walk to a win - even if he ends up embroiled in his own horrific scandal - but I should also be a sport and team player and have all of my friends and neighbors come out and vote for downticket candidates because why?
And I know that there are hundreds of people like me - people who can get hundreds more to vote for a whole slate of Democrats. What the Bergen Democrats don't realize, just like the New Jersey Democrats who don't understand Garden State Equality's stance on not donating to the Democratic Party as a whole, is that our votes, our time and our money is earned.
By not running a Congressional candidate, the Bergen Democrats are doing none of the above - and they will only lose by a larger margin than if they had a Congressional candidate.
As Jason notes just below, Congressman Scott Garrett is quick to use fear and hyperbole when talking about his views of healthcare reform. And the interesting thing with all of his fearmongering is the complete absence of some of the most basic underlying concerns on why health insurance providers are able to collude, deny coverage and hike rates by however much they feel like.
Congressman Pallone recently posted about repealing the antitrust exemption that health insurance companies currently enjoy (linked above). And while this may not be the only reason why rates have been hiked and competition is all but eliminated, the simple fact remains is that there are industry wide price and competition abuses that are fostered by the exemption.
So, back to Garrett - he is always in favor of more competition and more "market forces". Even his own website section on healthcare talks about competition across state lines. But without a removal of the antitrust exemption, this is close to a nonstarter. And because of the lack of oversight on the hundreds of mergers that occurred, the competition that he talks about was bound to disappear rapidly. It is clear that when it comes to standing up for the very principles he purports to have, Garrett is nothing more than a walking hypocrite and contradiction.
A D.C. Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that same-sex marriage opponents do not have a right to call for a referendum to determine whether such unions should be legal in the District.
The decision, a major victory for gay rights activists, makes it more likely that the District will begin allowing same-sex couples to marry in March.
It's interesting to note why the court ruled the way it did, as a constant argument from opponents of Marriage Equality is that it should go to a referendum before the voters:
In the 23-page ruling, Judge Judith N. Macaluso affirmed a D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics decision that city law disallows the ballot proposal because it would promote discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Macaluso also concluded that previous court decisions outlawing same-sex marriage in the District are no longer valid.
Of course opponents plan to file an appeal of the decision, but the clock is ticking:
Despite opponents' plans to appeal, they are running out of time to block same-sex marriages in the District. Congress has begun the required 30-legislative-day review of the same-sex marriage law.
City leaders said that, barring intervention by Congress, marriage licenses will be available to same-sex couples around the first week of March.
Garrett may wait to try and take the power from the judges again until they rule on an appeal holding out hope, but no doubt he'll be back to stopping those activist judges as soon as they don't rule his way the last time.
"I am gravely concerned about the situation in Haiti. I am saddened over the tragic loss of life and I am remaining in close contact with the State Department regarding the state of the constituents from my district who were in Haiti at the time of the earthquake. My prayers are with their families and I will do everything I can to ensure their safe return home."
Now, I'm not going to compare quotes or statements from others, but there is so much wrong with this statement, starting with the utter lack of compassion for the magnitude of this disaster. This "situation" in Haiti is something along the lines of 200,000 - 500,000 dead and a disaster "like no other in UN memory".
Usually, one can tell a lot about someone by their initial thoughts or statements, or how they react to tragedy. In this case, I remember how Garrett was the only NJ Representative to vote AGAINST Katrina relief. Here, he makes no mention of the citizens of Haiti, the families of those who live in Haiti or anyone other than the people in his district who happened to be visiting at the time the earthquake struck.
Someone recently told me that Scott Garrett spends more on mailers to his district than any other Congressman or Congresswoman. And while I'd love to find out if that is actually true, I tend to ignore (probably foolishly) his 3 or 4 page glossy "newsletter" that I receive a few times each year. My reasoning is that I know his schtick - he routinely votes against bills that 400 other members of the House vote for because of some "technicality" and then tells his constituents that he is really in favor of the bill but couldn't have it 100% his way so he has to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
So when I got his latest mailer, I tossed it in with the rest of my recyclables (of course), but then had the fortune to come across this post by a former Goldwater conservative who hits fat cat CEO's favorite Congressman right between the eyes with a brilliant takedown of the fluff, misdirection and outright twisting of the facts contained in Garrett's latest mailer.
I won't repeat all of Michael Fremer's arguments, especially since we have made them here and at Retire Garrett issue by issue, and there really is nothing new. He rails against the stimulus (which presumably would include the vote he cast against the largest middle class tax cut in history and scary teabagger talk about healthcare. That being said, it is refreshing to see someone say it so plainly when it comes to Garrett's hypocrisy regarding unemployment:
"You offer no job creation plans in your email other than more tax cuts.
"A job creation engine" was the supposed purpose of the Bush tax cuts for the rich back in 2001 that produced the weakest job growth out of a mild recession in recent history. All it produced was a deficit from what had been a projected surplus.
Had we allowed G.M. and other businesses to fail, the unemployment rate would now be catastrophic, yet that would have been your "solution."
So I find your carping about unemployment churlish and dishonest.
Lest we forget that Garrett's proposed solutions include his very own stimulus bill that he introducedconsisting entirely of corporate tax breaks. When Wall Street needs more tax breaks, they call on their "Hero" to champion a bill for them. And when AIG executives want to keep the bonuses they paid out from Government money, they call on "Wall Street Hero" Scott Garrett. But when families in his district are struggling, they get smacked in the face by his votes and his disingenuous rhetoric.
After the Senate voted 98-0 to extend unemployment benefits, the House voted yesterday by a margin of 403-12 to extend unemployment benefits to those workers who (1) lost their jobs, (2) still can't find another job and (3) have been out of work for so long that their unemployment benefits have run out.
As usual, Scott Garrett was one of the 12 heartless Reps who would rather see tax cuts to corporations than help keep food on the plates of those who he claims to represent. This is far from the first time Garrett has done this - this year alone, he voted against the largest middle class tax cut in history as well as expanding unemployment benefits to a larger pool of people who are in need.
Yet, time and time again, he talks nonsense about "letting people keep more of their hard earned money" as he votes against pretty much every single bill that is supposed to help families in his district actually earn money or just get by. What Garrett fails to realize, or even worse - he does realize but just doesn't care - is that when people have no job and no unemployment benefits, there is no money for them to keep more of.
It is votes like this that make me outraged and ashamed that someone this heartless or clueless is "representing" me.
A bit more fun figuring out good ways to let people of NJ (and NJ's fifth district) know just what their "representative" wants for the people of the state.
Another h/t to rmfretz over at Blog the Fifth for catching Scott Garrett's latest TV appearance on CNBC with Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz on Squawk Box. Garrett said the healthcare bill is being rushed through no matter what people think and in the process, they are insulting constituents. Schwartz said she's hearing questions on legislation, but that she shouldn't let the arguing distract us from the real debate of how to contain costs and get healthcare coverage.They talked about areas for potential compromises, but Schwartz said that excluding pre-existing conditions is unacceptable. She said as the plan comes to the floor of Congress, they'll see additional changes. Garrett went after the bill talking about the failures of Medicare and said there hasn't been bi-partisan with Republicans giving no input. Garrett said he can't even support co-operatives, so he will oppose anything because he says it's moving toward a single payer and will squeeze out the private sector. Schwartz said she would not support a plan that has co-ops rather than a public option, because we can't leave it to the private insurance sector with new rules. She said the public option will help drive down costs for the whole system.
Congressman Scott Garrett appeared on the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC for an interview talking about the healthcare legislation in Congress and why he says he opposes it. Here's a sampling of what he had to say:
But Congressman Scott Garrett, a Republican from northern New Jersey, says the government-backed medical coverage for the elderly is doing a bad job. He says it should not be a model for broader coverage, in part, because it pays providers too little.
GARRETT: A lot of doctors who have been in the business and who?re getting out of the business say, "I can't make any money on this. I'm not gonna shift any more. I'm gonna get out of the business."
Garrett told WNYC's Brian Lehrer that private insurers have much higher administrative costs than Medicare, because they provide much more helpful consumer information than the government does.
I particularly like the part of his answer where he says the private insurers provide more consumer info and that's why their administrative costs are higher, while at the same time the GOP rails against how ineffective the government program is. Here's what the House Energy and Commerce committee says the healthcare bill Garrett opposes would mean to his district:
America?s Affordable Health Choices Act would provide significant benefits in the 5th Congressional District of New Jersey: up to 20,400 small businesses could receive tax credits to provide coverage to their employees; 9,400 seniors would avoid the donut hole in Medicare Part D; 900 families could escape bankruptcy each year due to unaffordable health care costs; health care providers would receive payment for $51 million in uncompensated care each year; and 33,000 uninsured individuals would gain access to high-quality, affordable health insurance. Congressman Scott Garrett represents the district.
Rep. Garrett opposed an auto industry bailout when it was proposed by the Bush administration in late 2008, and signed a letter suggesting the companies go through bankruptcy reorganization rather than receive government support.
But after hearing from constituents, he is not happy with the closure of car dealerships in his district.
In a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and presidential adviser Lawrence Summers, Garrett said the closures "represent the direct loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars to local economies."
He demanded to know the reasoning used by a White House task force in pressing for Chrysler and General Motors to shed dealerships.
Garrett has this point on his side: When the Obama administration took an active hand in managing the car companies, it inherited the heat that comes with the disruptive changes the companies have to make to stay in business.
But worth noting: At a hearing in December, Garrett criticized the restructuring plans submitted by Ford, Chrysler and GM for putting that disruption off.
"The question is, do we close dealerships in 2012 or restructure union obligations in 2011? None of that's going to help us right now: Things have to be done sooner," Garrett said.
This is the same Garrett who votes against anything that has anything to do with the federal government spending money - if it isn't on Iraq. and this is the same Garrett who said recently that TOO MUCH REGULATION was to blame for the financial crisis, and that the free markets should sort themselves out.
And yes, this is the same Garrett who voted against the stimulus bill (the largest middle class tax cut in history) that also was to bring thousands of jobs to his district, spoke out against the auto bailout and wanted the auto companies to go through bankruptcy - just as the "free market" would have it.
But when the inevitable happened and dealerships in his (and my) district closed - he wonders how the free market would allow that and feigns outrage.
When this country has been faced with natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, tornadoes across the Midwest, droughts in the south and west, wildfires in California and toxic spills contaminating our water supply around the region and country, it is absolutely baffling why this would be something to vote against. At a time when our food and water supplies are at risk - when there are shortages around the country and when we hear of chemicals infiltrating the water supply what does this say about the priorities of someone who doesn't think protecting our nation's water supply from contamination is important?
The Drum Major Institute ("DMI") and TheMiddleClass.org just released their annual rankings and grades on how each Senator and Representative voted on issues important to the middle class. And since "middle class" is a very broad and vague term, this is how DMI describes it as it relates to a slew of votes and issues:
The middle class is more than an income bracket. Over the past fifty years, a middle-class standard of living in the United States has come to mean having a secure job, a safe and stable home, access to health care, retirement security, time off for vacation, illness and the birth or adoption of a child, opportunities to save for the future and the ability to provide a good education, including a college education, for one's children. When these middle-class fundamentals are within the reach of most Americans, the nation is stronger economically, culturally and democratically.
Most Americans identify themselves as middle class. Yet DMI is concerned not only with those who currently enjoy a middle-class standard of living, but also with expanding the middle class by increasing the ability and opportunities of poor people to enter the middle class. The middle class is strengthened when more poor people are able to work their way into its ranks. In a nation that is increasingly polarized between the very wealthy and everyone else, DMI sees the poor and middle class as sharing many of the same interests. Simply put: what strengthens and expands the middle class is good for America.
Now, readers may think that this is a progressive organization and the votes will be skewed towards Democrats. However, in the latest scorecard, Rep. Chris Smith got an A and Frank LoBiondo got a B for last year. In fact, 65% of ALL Congressional officials (House and Senate) received passing grades, with another 15% receiving an incomplete. That leaves only 20% who received failing grades - and, not surprisingly, only one in New Jersey - Scott Garrett, who also has the honor of a 0% rating for 2009 so far.
Only 5 Senators received 0% grades for 2009, and of the House members with a 0% grade, Garrett is the only one north of PA (there are 2 Reps in PA) with such a disastrous score. In fact, Garrett has received an F for every year since 2003 (here is a link to all of his applicable votes over the seven year period).
This is truly stunning - even for those who follow Garrett's record and stances. There is no bigger enemy to the middle class in the entire Northeast. From his very first year in Congress through his 2009 votes against the biggest middle class tax cut in history and to preserve the AIG bonuses (where he was once again the only NJ Representative to vote in this way) -he is NOT voting in the interest of his constitutents.
It's time to Retire Garrett. The good people of his District deserve someone who will represent them, especially in an economy as bad as this.
In what has become something akin to a broken record, Scott Garrett was the lone NJ Representative to vote for something. In this case, the vote was to preserve $165 million of bonuses paid to AIG employees who were responsible for nearly bringing down the entire company.
With our tax dollars.
This would be bad enough in and of itself, as half of ALL House republicans voted against Garrett on this, but if you look at the hypocrisy that is Scott Garrett, it makes it even worse. This man claims to be a "budget hawk" when he votes against the stimulus bill (which would bring thousands of jobs to the district) or when he votes against things like mortgage relief for struggling families or health insurance for children or raising educational standards - but he has consistently voted for never-ending billions for Iraq with no oversight.
And now, this.
So this same man who brings close to zero dollars to the people of his district - not through earmarks (even though NJ is last in the country in money received from the Federal Government relative to what its citizens send in tax dollars), not through votes on bills that would help the economy here - is one to vote for letting $165 million of our tax dollars go unchecked to those who had a huge hand in creating the financial crisis that this country, state and district now faces.
Just think about the number of jobs or number of households facing foreclosure (with 2 out of the top 4 (and 3 of the top 8) counties in the entire state in number of foreclosures during January), or children without healthcare, or number of crumbling roads in the district that could benefit from $165,000,000 which Garrett would rather see go to people who don't live in the district in return for screwing up the economy.
This isn't a "budget hawk". This is someone who is beholden to corporate interests and not the people he is supposed to represent.
In a recent column, Herb Jackson calls Congressman Scott Garrett (R-Fringe Right Wing) out on yet another instance of him being "Mr. 12-1" as the only NJ delegation member to vote in a particular way (read: the wrong way) on a bill. This time, it was a bill that failed by 2 votes, and in typical Garrett fashion, he "explains his vote" (which Jackson is too generous with that headline) by creating a false perception of himself as someone who just wants to do the right thing only if the evil pork projects which are a small part of the bill itself weren't in there. So because he don't like it completely, he has to make sure that nobody gets anything. The only problem is that Garrett completely distorts his actual position with a laundry list of things that are mere symbolism and no real meaning.
"If The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 only contained spending that truly improved and protected our environment, I would whole-heartedly support its passage. The legislation, however, bundles good projects with pork projects and spending of $5.5 billion over five years. Examples of pork in the bill include $3.5 million to the city of St. Augustine, FL for a birthday party, $200,000 for a tropical botanical garden in Hawaii and $250,000 to study the birthplace of Alexander Hamilton in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
"This is appalling, especially in a time of economic crisis when the American people are looking to Washington to cease the excessive federal spending that continues to bloat our national debt. It's time to get serious about fiscal responsibility and do more than simply pay lip service to the concept."
As a member of the Land Conservation Caucus, Congressman Garrett has a strong record as a supporter of environmental protection, taking the following actions to protect the environment:
And then it lists a number of things like making a phone call for someone or signing a letter or 2 or "providing comments concerning".
If by "strong record as a supporter", you mean "is very much against", then sure - he isn't full of it. But the truth is, Garrett is one of the worst, if not the worst Congressmen when it comes to his actual voting record on environmental issues.
UPDATE:I don't mind saying - that was a really great interview. Dennis offered some great insight, both politically and from his perspective as a government official. Seriously, check it out. - JG
Each week, Blue Jersey Radio streams LIVE with New Jersey's latest political buzz, interviews with newsmakers, and your stimulating calls.
This week: Our guest is Bergen County Executive Dennis McNerney. What should we know about the elected leader of New Jersey's most populous county - a community larger than 6 states, including Alaska? We'll find out. With a new Chair in place at the BCDO, the huge importance of Bergen County in the Governor's race this year, and the fight to take back the 5th District in 2010 having already begun, Dennis could offer quite a bit of insight. Tune in and find out!
(Promoted from the diaries because New Jersey's Congressional delegation would be much better off without Rush Limbaugh Republican Garrett - SW)
(Promoted from the diaries because New Jersey's Congressional delegation would be much better off without Rush Limbaugh Republican Scott Garrett -SW)
As many of you know we had our first official Take Back the 5th Town Hall yesterday. Although there was a threat of snow, we still had a fairly good turn out (nearly 40 people on a Sunday afternoon), and a distinguished panel of speakers. The most encouraging sign in my opinion was the diverse group of elected officials that came out to speak. Freeholders Vernon Walton & Jim Carroll, Sheriff Leo McGuire, Ridgewood Councilman (and 2006 Democratic Nominee) Paul Aronsohn, Former Closter Councilman Jack Kelly, and Ogdensburg Mayor Jim Sekelsky, all were on hand to discuss why Scott Garrett was an ineffective Congressman and the work that needs to be done to unseat him in 2010.
Another thing that became very evident to me is how different the voters are in each county of NJ-5. A message that could work in Warren and Sussex probably won?t work in Bergen, and the geographic challenges that a candidate faces in the district make it very difficult for him/her to connect with voters. New ideas and methods need to be implemented in order to win in 2010, and this event opened a new dialogue for organization and message development throughout NJ-5.
In my opinion alternate campaign tactics to be utilized to address these challenges. When Paul Aronsohn spoke about how he walked across the district in 2006 knocking on doors and engaging voters in made me realize how great of an idea that was. If we could organize people to walk in their respective towns in the district, knocking on doors, distributing literature, and just opening a dialogue with voters on why Garrett is not representing them, we could really begin a grassroots movement.
Rep. Scott Garrett, R-Wantage, questioned whether the Obama administration is simply prolonging economic bad news rather than preventing it with its latest plan to assist homeowners facing foreclosure.
At a House Financial Services Committee hearing Wednesday where Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke testified, Garrett voiced the anger of families that have been paying their mortgages and didn't buy houses they couldn't afford. Here's part of a statement he released afterward:
"I'm worried that the administration's proposed efforts will only delay the inevitable full correction of the market, while saddling future generations with tens of billions of dollars of additional debt.
"Delaying the onset of a true housing bottom, it seems to me, has other unintended negative consequences, as well. Not until we reach a bottom will we begin to provide certainty on the value of so-called toxic mortgage-related assets found on financial institutions' balance sheets around the world. The uncertainty surrounding the value of these assets is one of the main contributors to the downward spiral of our economy, so the sooner we reach certainty, the better."
The problem here is that Garrett is supposed to represent people and families, as opposed to corporations, and if you were to look at a summary of foreclosures in January 2009 by county, Passaic, Sussex and Warren Counties are ranked first, fourth and eighth in the state in homes foreclosed.
What does Garrett propose that these families do while waiting for a "true housing bottom"? What is Garrett's plan for helping the families out in his own district - with not one, not two but THREE of the top eight counties in terms of foreclosures?
I guess those families can wait for the corporate tax breaks to put food on their table, find them a new place to live or pay for heat.
TODAY: It's an extraordinary act of faith and commitment to launch a public meeting like this, in as uphill a District as NJ-5, as early in the cycle as Adam, Matthew and Michael and friends are doing this. This is how change gets made and this is where netroots crosses with grassroots. BRAVO -- promotedRe-promoted by Rosi
Promoted by Jason Springer: Are you going?
Save the Date: March 1, 2009, 2:30 PM, Demarest Borough Hall
As you all have read over the past few months, myself, Adam Lambert (the artist formely known as clammyc), and Michael Simonson have been involved in organizing a Take Back the 5th Town Hall, which is taking place this Sunday, at the Demarest Borough Hall. We have a great line up of featured speakers and hopefully we can start a real dialogue towards organizing and defeating Scott Garrett in 2010.
Speaking will be Paul Aronsohn, a Ridgewood Councilman, and 2006 Democratic Nominee in NJ-5, Jack Kelly, a former Closter Councilman, and Paul Eisenman, head of Bergen Grassroots. Guests will include Mayor Jim Sekelsky of Ogdensburg, Carl Richko, former Mayor of West Milford, and elected officials throughout the district.
.gif)
