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 Macaluso also concluded that previous court decisions outlawing same-sex marriage in the District are no longer valid.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.
Congressmen Rothman and Garrett faced off on CNN over the health care debate following the President's speech last week.
Congressman Rothman said the speech changed the healthcare debate dramatically, but Garrett said the President made a case he's made since day one. Garrett said what Obama is saying isn't in the Senate or House plans that are being considered and said he actually reached out to the President after the speech to hand him a packet with over two dozen Republican bills and suggestions. He made that statement in response to Rothman saying he's waiting for GOP ideas, to which Rothman said Garrett didn't offer any specific programs on his website about insurance companies dropping people when they're sick, providing competition so insurance companies can't keep raising rates and no suggestion of what to do with American citizens who are uninsured. Then Rothman made the case for the public option, to which Garrett attacked the house bill. Have a look.
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.
Representative Scott Garrett and Representative Anthony Weiner sat down on Fox 5's morning show to discuss the health care debate. One of the important things they discussed was whether or not Congress actually will read all 1,000 of the bill.
Garrett, for his part, has put his money where his mouth is on this one, signing up to co-sponsor H. Res. 554. I've written before about the "Read the Bill" campaign, and I'm really happy to see Garrett on board.
And here's the video of the exchange:Weiner called Garrett out on the government getting in the way of patients and their doctors asking if he opposed Medicare. Garrett responded talking about the sustainability of the program.
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.
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.
The writer, Bob Braun, goes as far as saying that Garrett, "has a reputation as pro-conservation," which is utterly dishonest. He receieved a 0% rating by the LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS! He also thinks global warming is a hoax.
Braun sums up Garrett's political philosophy in the sentence, "People should neither blame others for their problems, nor expect others to solve those problems." While that is a good philosophy in general, it is a horrible philosophy for someone whose job is enacting laws to HELP people with problems they can't solve on their own.
Another guiding political philosophy Garrett mentions in the article is that "good people" make a good society...
I think Scott Garrett just discovered the solution to world hunger, draught, and the Middle East conflict - Good People!
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.
Promoted from the diaries. Keep 'em coming, Retire Garrett. Are there any other independent opposition groups forming in any of our other congressional districts? It's never to early to start, you know - - Rosi
This is the most recent post from RetireGarrett.com. Although Blue Jersey readers don't need to be told that free market economies don't work, the Retire Garrett Campaign is attempting to work on certain frameworks that will most effectively convince voters of Rep. Garrett's incompetence. One idea put forward is attacking Garrett's belief that the market does not need to be regulated in any way, shape, or form. What do you think?
"market, heal thyself" - Scott Garrett
We hear a lot from Scott Garrett about the free market. He praises it. He thinks the unfettered free market is a boon to America. He thinks the lack of an entirely free market caused the economic meltdown. We now know Scott Garrett was wrong.
There is agreement across the spectrum from the left to the right that the abolishment of regulatory oversight was a major contribution to the meltdown and our recent economic troubles. No one was watching the cookie jar.
The free market philosophy can only work if the people handling our banks and financial institutions are honest and trustworthy. Of course, many are but too many are not. Hello Madoff, Thain, Enron, AIG, Bear Stearns etc. This is not new. History clearly shows how people seek advantages over others, permit greed to overcome good character, conform when they need to whistle blow, take risks with other peoples? assets and money and more. This is not new and it is not likely to stop or change.
Support is growing in Congress for more efforts to protect consumers from bad financial practices involving mortgages, predatory lending, credit cards, retirement accounts, payday loans and other financial instruments. In response, a bill is has been introduced to create a new agency that would oversee and regulate the process:
It's called the Financial Product Safety Commission and is modeled after the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The new agency, endorsed by a long list of consumer organizations, could become a part of a new regulatory scheme almost certain to emerge from the country's experience with what's been called the Great Recession.
A bill establishing the agency has been introduced in the House and the Senate. It would "prevent and eliminate practices that lead consumers to incur unreasonable, inappropriate, or excessive debt, or make it difficult for consumers to repay existing debt, including practices or product features that are abusive, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, predatory, anti-competitive, or otherwise inconsistent with consumer protection."
Not surprisingly, Scott Garrett opposes this effort saying the problem isn't deregulation, but actually too much regulation (no joke):
"Failed regulation, government policies and inappropriate intrusion by the federal government into the market were in large part what caused the financial crisis," he says.
Garrett says he is "skeptical" about the ability of any new regulator to "promote stability in the marketplace or truly provide a service to the consumer."
Leonard Lance thinks we can fix what we already have:
"I am not in favor of creating new agencies simply to have new agencies," says Lance, "but I would be willing to work with the new administration to create more effective consumer protection."
But Congressman Holt doesn't think that's possible and if you follow me below the fold, you can see the rest of the story.
