I know, a cryptic title - so follow me here. But any comments by Representative Scott Garrett in support of women's suffrage as this country celebrates the 90th anniversary later this week would be in conflict with his consistent vote against the rights of those who aren't wealthy corporate donors.
It is a real good thing that the right for women to vote isn't up for reauthorization as well - because you never know what Garrett will come up with to deny them the most basic right as an American.
Why do I say this? Back in 2006, Garrett was only one of 33 Representatives to vote AGAINST the reauthoriziation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In attempting to explain a vote that seemed to anyone with a conscience as insensitive and racist, Garrett said the following:
Now, I have been here now for 3 years, just as the gentleman from Iowa has been as well, and I can think of many other very important significant legislations that we have reauthorized. But for the life of me, and I stand to be corrected, I cannot think of any other bill, any other important issue, whether you are dealing with the air, the water, the environment, our schools, our education or our health, our defense or otherwise, I cannot think of any other areas, and again I stand to be corrected, where we have reauthorized something for two and one-half decades. So I think that is the first area that we need to be addressing, and you are rightfully so for bringing it up.
Just as a side note on this, I did put in an amendment that would limit this down to 6 years, but that was the proverbial compromise amendment if we were not successful in getting your amendment to the floor tomorrow which would eliminate the multi-lingual ballots entirely.
Now, Garrett had a number of issues with the reauthorization, but his first two are incredibly telling. For starters, he felt that equal rights for something as basic as voting should only be reauthorized for 6 years, and not 25. Garrett's own words on this issue were that "circumstances in this country will be significantly different than they are today 25 years hence". His second issue? That ballots would not be English-only.
I ask this - what could possibly change in this country that would make the right to vote obsolete?
Of all of the scummy things that Rep. Garrett has voted against (cuz he doesn't actually vote FOR anything), this is one of the worst:
A bill that would have provided up to $7.4 billion in aid to people sickened by World Trade Center dust fell short in the House on Thursday, raising the possibility that the bulk of compensation for the ill will come from a legal settlement hammered out in the federal courts.
The bill would have provided free health care and compensation payments to 9/11 rescue and recovery workers who fell ill after working in the trade center ruins.
So those who were brave enough and put their time, lives and health on the line to help those in the days and weeks after 9/11 have to fight in court to have the diseases and illnesses they got from serving this country after the 9/11 attacks. This vote actually had a huge majority - it got support from 255 Reps and voted against by 159 - far more than 50% support. But it failed to get a 2/3 majority and lost by around 20 votes.
Now, only 12 Republicans in the entire House voted for this, and 4 of them were from New Jersey. You know, the state that had the 2nd most victims on 9/11. And guess who was the one Representative that couldn't even stomach helping his own fellow New Jerseyans pay for the health problems that arose from them stepping up for their country in its' darkest day?
There is no excuse. Nothing can be more indicative of what Garrett's priorities are, and who his is as a person to his core. There is a quote I saw recently that goes something like this:
Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.
Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com has just introduced his new "Partisan Propensity Index" (PPI). If you've been following elections closely, you're probably already familiar with the Partisan Voting Index (PVI) from Cook, and similar statistics from Swing State Project. Cook's idea is to look at how each Congressional District voted for President compared to the nationwide average. So, for example, the NJ5 district (Garrett's) is rated R+7, meaning it voted 7 points more Republican than nationwide, while NJ13 (Sire's) is rated D+21. You can see why Democrats had such a hard time even with a good candidate against Garrett, and why Republicans didn't seriously contest NJ13 when Menendez left it. Unlike Congressional races, where often one candidate is hardly covered in the news and has hardly any campaign budget, the two party's Presidential candidates are well known. The PVI index is widely used to identify competitive districts.
Here's Silver's idea:
Are there any systematic differences in the ways that votes tend to fall for the Congress, as opposed to the Presidency? Are certain districts better or worse for Democrats, or Republicans, than PVI alone would suggest?
It turns out that there's one other factor which is fairly useful to look at, which is socioeconomic status. Relative to how they do for the Presidency, Democrats are somewhat more likely to win races for Congress in poorer districts, and somewhat more likely to lose them in wealthier ones. Another way to put this is that a split ticket of Republican for President, Democrat for Congress is more likely to occur in a poor district, whereas a split ticket of Democrat for President, Republican for Congress is more likely to occur in a wealthy one.
Click through for the statistical analysis he uses. Silver expresses his PPI index as the chance for Democrats to win an open seat in an average election cycle, based solely on two factors: the recent Presidential Vote and the percentage of the population with incomes under $25,000/yr. Here are the results for New Jersey:
District
Name
PVI
PPI
NJ11
Frelinhguysen
R+7
2.5%
NJ5
Garrett
R+7
3.2%
NJ4
Smith
R+6
10.9%
NJ7
Lance
R+3
13.9%
NJ3
Adler
R+1
27.9%
NJ12
Holt
D+5
62.9%
NJ2
LoBiondo
D+1
66.0%
NJ6
Pallone
D+8
85.2%
NJ9
Rothman
D+9
88.8%
NJ8
Pascrell
D+10
96.6%
NJ1
Andrews
D+12
97.0%
NJ13
Sires
D+21
99.95%
NJ10
Payne
D+33
99.998%
The main lesson, if you take this ratings seriously, is that New Jersey's wealth makes the battleground Congressional districts lean Republican compared to how they vote at the Presidential level. In many states, the R+3 and even the R+7 districts have a great chance of going Democratic at the Congressional level, but here NJ5 and NJ7 are actually quite unfavorable, and should vote for the House like R+14 districts in the rest of the country. When we evaluate how our candidates did, it's worth keeping this effect in mind.
Frank LoBiondo's district is the poorest in New Jersey, and by this measure is slightly better for Democrats than Holt's district, but we are stuck with the echo of 1994. In case it's not obvious, being an incumbent matters, scandals matter, and cycles can be more or less Republican than the average cycle, and you should always remember that the most likely outcome doesn't always happen. All of our 2010 races have incumbents so the percentages definitely do not apply. Also, this is the last election in the current districts.
...the three year old boy in the bathtub? What his mom says about his "privates" will make your skin crawl.
It's the "short joke of the year" in the Warren County Edition of Our Town (Issue #15 - July 8, 2010).
There's an angry, seething rant about Obama sucking the oil spill through a straw on the front page.
Brought to our nice community by the following advertisers:
Houston & Palmer, Attorneys at Law - (that's Municipal Court Judge J. Edward Palmer's private law firm!)
Fiedler Real Estate, Brass Rose Salon & Spa Bach's Home Health Care Supply Marley's Gotham Grill Second Time Around Consignment Store Main Street Ice Cream Rita's Water Ice Brian's Market Blairstown Inn and dozens of other so-called "respectable businesses" (wink! wink!).
The scripture passage this week is 2 Corinithians 3:1-18.
With the disaster in the Gulf, it is important to remember that there is one NJ Congressman who was in favor of offshore drilling right near NJ. With that, I put together the video below:
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.
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.
A comment over on Blue Jersey about the state of our Congressional District really raised an eyebrow and got me thinking. The comment was this:
I'll give you another example - I live in NJ-5, Scott Garrett is my congressman. It is looking more and more like the county parties aren't going to put ANYONE up - at a time where republican turnout will be higher and more motivated than the past 5+ years.
This is a sad statement on our politics in their current state. Gerrymandering has gotten to a point where folks like Garrett can serve until they are redistricted out or retire. His only threat real and perceived is in the primary, when the smallest fraction of the electorate makes all the decisions. Democrats won't run anyone because they don't want to spend the money. Politics is a business.
This reality undermines the entire intent of a Representative being accountable to their constituents. Forget the fact that the Democrats can't get someone who believes enough in their values to step up. With the Democrats punting, there's no one to bring up relevant questions for voters to ponder at the ballot box. Why vote against small business tax cuts repeatedly? Why vote against balancing the budget repeatedly? Why vote against extending unemployment benefits repeatedly? Why vote to hasten Medicare's insolvency?
Granted, Garrett is by all accounts safe in this seat. In fact it hasn't really been close on election day in a very long time. That said, Democrats failure to supply voters with any kind of alternative abdicates their fundamental responsibility in our already flawed two party system.
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.
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.
Up here in Hackettstown, there was a very famous murder case in 1886.
A woman named Tillie Smith was "outraged and murdered" on the campus of the Centenary Collegiate Institute. That is the word the papers at the time used for rape. Even though they toned down the word, the story definitely had an effect on its audience.
Not long after her body was found strangled, the Prosecutor ran out of leads.
Unfortunately for the janitor at the college, James Titus, he made a sexually suggestive comment about young Ms. Smith to another young man that night.
Live in the 5th congressional district? You can get reporting at Blog the Fifth you won't find in your newspaper, plus context on some of the nutty, nutty things your congressman does, plus opportunities to join up with efforts to make a change there. - - - Promoted from the diaries by Rosi. Cross posted from Blog the Fifth
Representative Scott Garrett finally explained why he voted against extending unemployment benefits and the first time home buyer tax credit:
So, in sum, we have a program rampant with fraud, which gives taxpayer dollars to people who don't legitimately qualify, and fails to appropriately credit the individuals that do qualify. It's clear that employees of the IRS were aware of the problems with claims process for this program, as the inspector general found 53 cases of IRS employees filing "illegal or inappropriate" claims for the credit. In its current form, this program costs taxpayer about $1 billion a month and is expected to cost $15 billion for the year. Rather than terminate this program, Congress voted on November 5 to expand the program to homeowners looking to buy a replacement principle residence. How many more four-year olds will fraudulently receive taxpayer money under this program before Congress realizes this is a terrible idea?
Voting to expand this program would have been irresponsible of me, and an abdication of my responsibility as a guardian of taxpayer dollars. The Homebuyer Tax Credit Program was a poison pill to otherwise well-intended legislation.
It bears repeating that Garrett was one of 2.7% of the House to vote no on this bill, so it hardly was a poison pill.
Promoted by Jason Springer: An interesting exchange with Congressman Garrett talking healthcare and more great work by rmfretz keeping an eye on the Congressman at Blog the Fifth.
Representative Scott Garrett chats with Fox 5 about his vote against the health care bill. Garrett talks almost exclusively about Medicare Advantage as his reason, which as I've written before can currently charge taxpayers up to a 40% mark up on services.
It's good to see Garrett using the full term, as opposed to earlier, but I still can't understand how someone who claims he is a fiscal conservative can defend taxpayers paying up to 40% more than something actually costs for anything.
Although the House bill is dead in the Senate, taking the 40% mark up will be out no matter what bill comes back to the House for reconciliation.
While Garrett claims the program will be taken from those enrolled, nothing in the bill eliminates the program. What it eliminates is the 40% mark up. Now should insurance companies only participate due to their ability to gouge taxpayers, one could see them cease to offer the program, as the Chief Actuary for Medicare and Medicaid noted.
That aside, Garrett's interview is interesting in that it shows his true feeling on the Bill and overhaul in general.
How do you free someone who has been dead for 57 years?
Write to Governor Corzine and tell him about James Titus (b. 1857 - d. 1952).
Titus served almost nineteen years doing hard labor in the New Jersey State Prison because he was a little guy prone to panic attacks and the newspapers in New York, Trenton and Philadelphia wanted somebody to be caught for the rape and murder of Tillie Smith in Hackettstown, NJ on April 8, 1886.
You can do everything you can to spread the word that James Titus needs a Presidential Pardon.
I've been thinking a lot about the man who was arrested for taking a bath in public in Belvidere. He had been living in his car outside the Warren County Courthouse for several months after he lost his house. Finally, The Express-Times reported he had had enough and tried to get the filth off of himself in public because he thought he had nowhere else to go.
I met this man over the summer, just a few weeks before the incident. So I read the article with interest. He had a sign on his car window that said he was running for Warren County surrogate because he didn't like the way Susan Dickey had handled his case after the last of his parents died. He had a genuine tin-foil helmet in his backseat.
I am not writing to continue the ridicule that this man has surely received since his face appeared on the front page of the paper under the headline, "Naked man arrested." I am sorry if this letter has that effect on him. The real intent of this letter is to encourage readers to be more compassionate to him. I certainly hope his accusations are false, but if some of them are true, I hope the officials who made the mistakes will read this and do their jobs in an exemplary manner in the future. With the economy going the way it is going, one thing is certain: We are going to encounter more cases such as this.
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.
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.
Promoted by Jason Springer: This is grassroots organizing at its best. What are you doing in your area?
What: The Take Back the 5th Town Hall
When: Sunday, March 1 at 2:30 PM
Where: The Demarest Borough Hall
118 Serpentine Road
Demarest, NJ 07627
RSVP (Preferred, but Not Mandatory): E-Mail msimonson19@gmail.com or call Mike at 201-572-1030
