Here's what you've got to know about the 5th Congressional District: Up there, you've got your Sussex Tea Party people, the creationist-led, baby-dinosaurs-in-Noah's-Ark-believing captains of the effort to recall a seated US Senator, 'cuz they don't like how he votes. Tough, they are. But also up there, you've got you some progressives, and they're just as tough, and maybe more firmly affixed in the real world. And if you Tea Party folks get to have your legally-disputable recall of a United States Senator, maybe they go after your poster boy, Rep. Scott Garrett. Game on. - - Promoted by Rosi
This morning I read something that got my blood to boiling. As I frantically was working this morning to pay off my many medical bills at my very tiny small business, something I read before work kept me distracted - so I had to blog.
It was simply this: crazy nonsense about Tea Party activists who want to recall Senator Menedez, for VOTING. Not criminal wrongdoing, not Republican style adultery, not even ethical misconduct. Just for VOTING in a way that the little girls throwing their Tea Party tantrums didn't like. Aw.
I got news for those Tea Party guys. This cuts both ways you know. I have had to endure the heartless voting record of Mr Scott Garrett for way too long. Silly me, I assumed, when your guy loses the election, the other guy gets to vote for what HE wants. The loser LOSES. See, that's how it was supposed to work.
Well, the Tea Party activists stirred up by the hate groups here decided to go after the Senator with an ethnic sounding name. Lautenberg votes with Menedez and they vote so consistently Democratic that I trust they will vote for Democratic values 99% of the time - which they do. Why the little Tea Party girls chose to ONLY go after Menendez is shocklingly, astoundingly, absurdly blatant bigotry. In addition, The Tea Party activists, instead of actually winning an election, want to circumvent the democratic process and only invite their friends in for tea.
Here is where it can cut two ways. Who would Progressive NJ Dems who actually believe in evolution and helping their fellow man DEARLY love to remove from the Senate? Scott Garrett of course. You go after our guys, we will recall yours. We actually respected the outcome of the past elections where the 5th district was so gerrymandered as to ensure Scott Garrett's win for the foreseeable century. Lou Dobbs, king of anti-immigrants lives with other old angry white men in the rural parts of the 5th, and THEY have had their say for WAY too long here. I have been resigned to NOT having ANY representation in the House for the past 8 years. Because my guys lost the election. Now that the Tea Party folks have shown that ANY angry idiot with an ax to grind and too much time on their lazy hands can destroy democracy as we know it, I hope they realize they will have to reap the consequences of their actions.
You take away the Senators that speak for ME and the progressive community in NJ and I will see to it that your boy Garrett and his friends are recalled too. Just cause I don't like the way they vote and I think their mother dresses them funny. Wars have been fought over less. This recall effort by the Tea Party bigots is more than a silly prank. It is literally a shot across the bow. One that CANNOT go unanswered.
Each week, Blue Jersey Radio streams LIVE with New Jersey's latest political buzz, interviews with newsmakers, and your stimulating calls.
This week: We're joined by NJ-5 Congressional Candidate Tod Thiese seeking the democratic nomination in New Jersey's 5th District, for a chance to take on Scott Garrett in November.
Sure, it feels like we've been through this before. So, what's Tod got in mind to change it up this cycle? Find out from the candidate himself.
Have your own ideas? Drop 'em in the comments, then tune in and join the conversation!
It's all LIVE tonight at 8:00 p.m..
And, of course - you can always give us a call and have your say. That number again is: 646-652-2773.
That time is now, as Warren County resident Tod Theise has answered the call and announced his candidacy against Garrett. In his statement to the press, Thiese noted the following contrast between him and Garrett:
"I don't think he represents working families in the district," Theise said. "He voted against extending unemployment benefits ... he voted for every [George W.] Bush budget."
A former Republican, Theise became an independent in the early part of the last decade and then migrated to the Democratic Party. He said his reasons for the leaving the Republicans were the spending policies and lack of Wall Street regulation under Bush.
His criticisms of Garrett are similar.
"What I find lacking is that he gives the people on Wall Street a complete and utter pass," Theise said. "He is basically bought and sold by Wall Street."
Now, I've met Tod and spoken to him numerous times over the past few months as he has been moving towards a run at Garrett. There are a few things about this candidacy that I like personally - for starters, it will be interesting to see how a non-Bergen County challenger plays out - especially in the current climate where being associated with the BCDO isn't the best of associations right around now. Additionally, I've always thought that lowering the 60%+ of the vote that Garrett routinely gets in Warren and Sussex counties is imperative - that this race cannot be won in Bergen alone. I also like the views and approach that Tod is taking on a number of issues - but this will come out over the next few months as the campaign gets under way.
Of course, this is one of the most uphill battles in general, as Garrett has never gotten less than 55% of the vote in his 4 previous races. But you never know what can happen in an election, and there has been unprecedented focus on Garrett by a number of grassroots organizations in the District (ahem....).
I'll start by saying that anyone who uses the sentence that "MSNBC is the only counterpart to FOX and the right wing noise machine" has their head completely up their ass. Two hours per day (Olbermann and Maddow) do not make up for the countless hours of "fair and balanced programming" that Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough or much of the daytime programming comprises - certainly, this is a mixed bag at best and nothing near the ridiculously and blatantly skewed programming on FOX - or even worse, the "supposedly neutral" but SO NOT neutral CNN.
But I digress....
A couple of weeks back, Chris Matthews had two Congressmen on Hardball to discuss health care reform and how the issue could be moved forward in a bipartisan manner. The Republican Congressman appearing was New Jersey's own Scott Garrett. At the end of the segment, Chris heaped effusive praise on Garrett, calling him his type of Northeastern Republican, which I guess means the most radically rightwing kind. He even invoked the word "moderate" to describe Garrett (at which mention Garrett visibly cringed).
To grasp the abject stupidity of Matthews' misplaced admiration, you have to understand who Scott Garrett is and what he stands for. As we have documented here time and time again, Garrett is arguably THE most radical right-wing member of Congress. His illustrious legislative record includes, among many other things:
Voting against aid for victims of Katrina,
Voting against extending unemployment benefits for American families,
Voting against extending the Voting Rights Act,
Voting against providing health care to poor children,
Voting against anti-price gouging legislation holding big oil accountable,
Voting against taxing bonuses for Wall Street execs (he actually argued that they "deserved" them),
Voting for every bloated Bush budget, and
Voting for every dime spent in Iraq.
Oh, and by the way Chris - He's also catering to the birthers - if not necessarily an outward one himself, having said at a public meeting that he wanted to see Obama's birth certificate. Garrett further distinguished himself following the earthquake in Haiti. His message on his Congressional web site said the he was praying for those constituents of his affected by the quake. No mention of the thousands of Haitians who were dead or injured. Garrett also opposed abortion even in the case of rape or incest - allowing a rapist to choose the mother of his child or a molesting father to force his daughter to bear his own grandchild. And he referred dismissively to the push to eliminate DADT as a "side issue" not worthy of his consideration. That's Chris Matthews' kind of Republican.
As Jason notes below, Garrett also recently appeared on MSNBC's The Dylan Ratigan Show with guest host Ed Schultz. Once again he performed his one man show designed to portray himself as the sincere moderate that truly wants to work across party lines for the good of the American people. I can't blame Ed because he was filling in at the last moment. But I can blame the show's staff for not doing even a modicum of homework on their guest. Like Matthews, Schultz - someone who should know better - bought the well rehearsed charade hook, line and sinker.
By giving Garrett this kind of forum without challenging him on his record, MSNBC has aided and abetted an insidious political fraud. It is incumbent upon MSNBC to make sure this journalistic incontinence doesn't happen again. First, try to actually do some research on your guests. You know, like Rachel Maddow does so well. Second, next time you extend an invitation for Congressman Garrett to appear on one of your infotainment shows, ask him why he voted time and time again to deprive Americans of their most basic civil rights. Then ask him how we can buy into his fairy tale of working toward a bipartisan utopia when he questions the very legitimacy of our President to serve in office based on debunked crackpot theories.
Maybe then MSNBC can begin to regain some semblance of journalistic integrity.
Poor Scott Garrett. He was complaining the other day on the Dylan Ratigan show with Ed Shultz show that the President isn't reaching out to him and that Republicans have ideas that are being ignored. I guess he's not paying attention to the ideas that have been incorporated into the Presidents proposal. The White House even put out a list of the ideas they have included. That didn't matter for Garrett as he said Obama hasn't been genuine and has just talked down their ideas. Then they moved onto talking about abortion, because what else will we talk about when it comes to healthcare. Garrett pointed to Conservative Democrats and Congressman Stupak as stumbling blocks for Speaker Pelosi:
In a move to provide the first comprehensive protections for children against abusive disciplinary actions by schools, the House on Wednesday easily approved a bill to restrict the use of forcible restraint and seclusion, in which children are held down, drugged or isolated in a locked room to control their behavior.
and, no, it's not an imaginary problem:
The legislation stems in part from a government report last year that found evidence that hundreds of children - from preschool age to high school - had been traumatized or physically harmed by being held down or locked alone in rooms, some even tied to chairs. Many had developmental problems or were in special needs programs; many others were in regular classes. Some children have died, apparently because of overly aggressive discipline, according to numerous reports over the last decade.
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.
It's a shame that last night's BCDO convention failed to pick a candidate to run for CONGRESS!!!
The people of the 5th CD are being politically disenfranchised because the BCDO machine is so damned delusional that they evidently think that running a Democrat against Garrett would increase Republican turnout and maybe hurt their local candidates. I don't buy it.
Running scared is a sure way to lose elections. You would think we would have learned that from the way Corzine just lost to a hypocritical Bush administration hack who's not even in the same league as Jon Corzine.
The Republicans smell blood. I predict their turnout in November will be even higher than it was in 2008...or pretty close to it.....and that Democratic turnout will be relatively depressed.
There needs to be an exciting new charismatic energized candidate to run against Garrett, with or without the establishment Democratic party line!!! Such an aggressively progressive candidate will give Democrats a reason to get excited enough to leave their homes and vote in November.....such a candidacy will actually HELP the lower tier races! Let's find that candidate and get them on the ballot!!!
Sadly, even with boss Ferriero gone, the BCDO still hasn't figured out that to win as a Democrat in today's political climate you have to get people excited. The old machine is broken and out of gas.
Don't get me wrong, I'll still show up and vote the party line in November....the way I figure it, our candidates are still better than what the Republicans have to offer; but I dare say that there will be a lot of disaffected Dems staying home and a lot more turned on Republicans crawling out of the woodwork encouraged and inflamed by Christie's win and by the fact that we didn't even bother to run against Garrett.
Bullies don't walk away just because you cross the street. On the contrary, that sign of fear just motivates them to cross the same street and to beat you up all the more.
The politics of running scared has infected the Democratic party at every level. and that's a shame.
Of course it's more complex that that......it has more to do with trying to keep the payers who play happy and with not upsetting the establishmentarian apple cart. It's about the money, stupid.
Here's a great video that is directed toward the national situation...but I put it to you that it applies to New Jersey politics as well. When he says "DC" think Trenton....
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.
In a call-in "town hall" Tuesday, Rep. Scott Garrett bathed listeners in tea party rhetoric:
Healthcare is such a personal decision. "You don't want the government to be getting between you and your doctor. Do everything humanly possible to protect your rights and your liberties.
Sure. I know the last time my doctor prescribed a test he wanted me to have, my insurance company balked, and the whole thing wasn't resolved until after a tense discussion that involved my doc, me, and a rep from my insurer. By all means, lets preserve that system.
Furthering the misguided right-wing talking points, Garrett also reflexively attacked the President's health care plan, which he apparently doesn't quite understand. Garrett complained Obama was "bent on going forward with the public option" when in fact Obama's plan drops mention of the public option, a huge disappointment to reform advocates. In fact, right now, its some Senators, pushed by party activists, that are committing to working the public option into the reconciliation process. Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs even said yesterday the votes aren't there for public option.
Conservative activist Steve Lonegan managed the Q & A part of the call. One caller - self-identified as a doctor who immigrated from Hungary, said Obama's trying to take over the country, and Lonegan talked about tanks rolling into Hungary. Rather than challenging Lonegan on the tanks rolling in, Garrett said the man is why they are actually fighting against healthcare. That's right boys and girls, healthcare means tanks in the streets. You can't make this stuff up. Leave alone the responsibility Garrett abdicates to educate and keep current his constituents. That's pretty much shot. And Garrett wonders why he hasn't gotten a call back from the White House?
I do not think Leonard Lance can be beaten in a Republican Primary. Even if David Larsen won, he would be cut out in redistricting in 2012."
Doherty's statement is sure to anger some of the same people that put him in office, but his decision seems to be more about is own political standing and thinking Lance is the safe bet so it's better to keep his powder dry in this one. Larsen will need to raise some seed money to show people he's serious and not just looking to loan his campaign money for the effort. I'm told that Lance won't be the only Republican to get a challenge from the tea party crowd as someone may run against Frank Lobiondo.
Then in the seats held by Democrats, there are a few primary races to run against the Incumbent. There are numerous candidate running in the 3rd district and Justin Murphy could also get support from the tea partiers as he runs again this year. There is also the primary to run against Rush Holt as Mike Halfacre and Scott Sipprelle will face off in a right v. further right battle and there may be more candidates to jump in the race. Assemblywoman Mary Pat Angelini and others have expressed interest in challenging to run against Frank Pallone as well. The tea partiers are even saying they may put someone up against Scott Garrett from the right, if that's possible in comments to stories that are being written. The amount of candidate running in GOP primaries can be seen as an indication of the enthusiasm and also anger out there with the public right now, who only want to see 8% of incumbent re-elected right now.
By contrast, the Democrats in New Jersey don't seem to like primaries as much. The only primary challenge I've seen so far is one against John Adler, but his warchest will make that an uphill climb. I know inside political circles they tend to shy away from primaries, because it makes you spend resources you want to conserve for the general election battle and take stands you often don't want to defend. But sometimes primaries can better prepare candidates for the trial by fire that is a general election campaign. Even if the GOP candidates don't win their primary challenges, the incumbents will already be in campaign mode given the voter angst right now. The competitive primaries to challenge Democratic incumbents will season them for the rigors of a race. With the climate and public opinion where it is, it's important that candidates don't wait to start their campaigns and these primaries insure that the GOP won't.
Congressman Scott Garrett appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews last night along with his colleague, Democrat Jim Moran. They started talking about Republican Obstructionism and Garrett said that Democrats have had a year to get things done. Now he's there calling for working in a bi-partisan manner, which is rather funny considering he's often one of the few members in opposition on bills that have broad bi-partisan support. He says he works with people on the other side of the aisle all the time though.
Matthews pointed out that Republicans don't really want to negotiate and said he has no ill intent when he has a "slip of the tongue" and says Democrat party as opposed to Democratic Party. Garrett repeated the talking point toward the end of the interview that the way to get healthcare is to just start over with a blank slate.
I had to laugh out loud when I saw how Matthews closed the interview:
Congressman Garrett you are a great guest sir. You're my kind of northeastern Republican. There's a few wacky's out there in your party, but you're not one of them
If Garrett is his kind of Republican, you have to wonder how he defines wacky. Maybe it was his opposition to extending unemployment benefits. Or possibly his vote against Katrina relief. Or maybe it's about how he tries to use the court to further his own agenda, but the cries judicial activism when he doesn't agree with decisions. You can see the segment here.
Congressman Scott Garrett appeared yesterday on the Brian Lehrer show. They played a clip of President Obama talking about how the focus should be on jobs and small businesses. Garrett said he does not support the $30 million being repaid from TARP funds going to small businesses. He said it's not designed as a slush fund for any goals the administration comes up with. He said if it wasn't from TARP to spend $30 million for a targeted program to hire new employees, he couldn't support that type of program either because you're picking winners and losers.
Garrett said lets just cut corporate taxes across the board and let them make decisions on what to do. Lehrer asked if Garrett was aware SEC allowed the 5 big investment banks to double their leverage ratios and take on increased risk because he was on the committee at the time in 2004. Garrett said he wasn't sure, but would check and that even if they knew, they were focused on other things.
On Don't ask don't tell, Garrett called it a side issue. He said it would not be one of his priorities and he wouldn't be signing onto a bill because it doesn't need to be addressed at this point. Even if the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Defense Secretary and Chairman of Marines say it can be done, he would probably still vote against it.
Finally, they got to the GOP retreat. Garrett bemoaned the fact that they are being called the party of no because he gave them proposals. He said they have had ideas, the President just thinks they are bad and that the exchange at the retreat was really just an acknowledgement that the GOP has ideas.
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.
Thirty-nine congressional Republicans, including House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.), have filed an amicus brief in D.C. Superior Court calling for a voter referendum on whether to legalize same-sex marriage in the District.
Just leave it to Republicans to think a public vote to strip away the rights of citizens is a good idea. Funny, in a hypocritical way, how Republicans are always bashing lawyers and lawsuits, but run to the courts when they can thwart equality.
A quicker and more effective solution was published here a few issues back by Congressman John Hostettler. It would use Congress' Article I, Section 8 and Article III, Sections 1 and 2 powers to limit the jurisdiction of inferior federal courts and to set exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. His bill, H.R. 3313 (co-sponsored by congressmen Mike Pence, Nick Smith, Scott Garrett, Virgil Goode, Todd Aikin, Gil Gutknecht, Dave Weldon, Walter Jones, Roscoe Bartlett, Michael Forbes and Ron Paul), would remove federal court jurisdiction over the issue of marriage. This goes directly to the root problem and sends a shot across the bow of judicial activism everywhere. Massachusetts legislators could follow the same path if inspired by national leaders and solve their problem now, whereas even a state constitutional amendment would come too late to stop the courts from legalizing same sex marriages. And the bill only needs a majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate to go into effect.
If I'm following along correctly, Garrett wants to go to court to ask them to do something he wants to take away their power to do? So the moral of the story for Republicans like Scott Garrett is that activist judges are bad, bad, bad, unless they're being active for things you believe in.
Congressman Scott Garrett appeared on CNBC's The Call with Larry Kudlow and Melissa Francis to talk about his proposal to raise the downpayment requirement on FHA loans. Former Hud Official and mortgage industry consultant Howard Glazer took all 3 on defending the current FHA setup:
Currently, you can get FHA loans with 3.5% down. Garrett is proposing to raise the downpayment to 5%. Glazer tried to compare the performance of FHA to that of private mortage companies. He said that raising the downpayment wouldn't lower the risk, it would just close the window on people who could get loans that the private market isn't serving. At times, it seemed like Larry Kudlow's head was going to explode and he actually said he was being discriminated against because he said he would have to put 20% down.
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.
