Retire Garrett

In their main editorial last Sunday the New York Times called for the The Supreme Court to “Uphold the Voting Rights Act”, the same Voting Rights Act that Congressman Garrett voted against reauthorizing in 2006. While Garrett thinks it unnecessary to protect the voting rights of minorities, the Times begs to differ:

“Discrimination against minority voters may not be as blatant as it was then, but it still exists. District lines are drawn to prevent minorities from winning; polling places are located in places hard for minority voters to get to: voter ID requirements are imposed with the purpose of suppressing minority vote.”

The editorial also mentions the massive majority that voted to reauthorize the Act in 2006: 98 to 0 in the Senate and 390 to 33 in the House. Let’s do the math: There are 435 Congressmen. Out of those 435, 33 opposed the Voting Rights Act. Scott Garrett was one of those 33.

I previously blogged about Garrett’s outrageous opposition to the Voting Rights Act. While many of Garrett’s votes have no effect on blocking or passing legislation, it is still crucial to shine a light on his preposterous belief system. Let’s hope by November 2010 it will be unneccessary to continue that.

Yes, the year is young, but this one is yet another in a stunning array of hypocrisy that is so-called “budget hawk” Scott Garrett.

When talking about why he voted against the stimulus bill – thereby denying his constituents much-needed things like extended unemployment benefits, tax credits for working families, tax credits for college students, energy incentives, infrastructure, help in the areas of health care and public schools – just to name a few – Garrett had the following to say on CNBC (go to around the 9 minute mark):

This spending plan, if you put it in comparison to what this country’s spent, it’s all the money we spent on the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Louisiana Purchase, the Marshall Plan and some of NASA’s funding as well added together….That’s an amazing amount of money, without the oversight, and you will see so much waste, fraud and abuse the public will be outraged

Of course, that lack of oversight, waste, fraud and abuse didn’t seem to bother Garrett as he repeatedly voted for hundreds of billions for Iraq that was wasted, abused and fraudulently given to republican party cronies with no oversight.

But let’s not let little things like facts get in the way of a good lie, right Ernie?

And to make matters worse, what does Garrett want instead?

Garrett has introduced a bill that would reduce the federal corporate business tax rate from 35 to 25 percent, and lower the capital gains tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent.

Yes, cutting corporate taxes instead of helping families stay in their homes or put a little more cash in their pockets.

So out of touch with what America’s families need.

by: Matthew Jordan

A victory for a Democrat in NJ-5 starts by mobilizing organizations on the county and municipal levels for 2009 elections. By registering new Democrats and spreading a strong message in 2009, voters in traditionally Republican areas become exposed to different ideas and policies.

The Democratic nominee in NJ-5 will most definitely have an uphill battle, but strong efforts need to be made in Sussex, Warren, and Passaic Counties. A Democrat can’t win simply by flipping Bergen County. Although it is the largest portion of the district, Garrett cannot be defeated without a better performance in the other 3 counties.

The following elections are taking place in 2009:

BERGEN COUNTY
Freeholder Vernon Walton (D-inc) and Freeholder Julie O’Brien (D-inc) are up for reelection in 2009. Although, barring any unforeseen circumstances, both should win reelection fairly easily. However, this is an advantage to invest time and money in more Republican parts of NJ-5. A concerted effort needs to be made to register new voters and raise money for municipal organizations in traditionally Republican areas of the County.

PASSAIC COUNTY
Freeholder Jim Gallagher (D-inc), Freeholder Tahesha Way (D-inc), Freeholder Sonia Rosado (D-inc), and County Clerk Karen Brown (D-inc). Just as in Bergen, unless one of these officials faces a primary challenge (as Gallagher and Brown very possibly could) their seats are safe. All of these candidates need to make an effort to engage voters in more suburban parts of Passaic County. Rosado (according to Wally Edge of politickernj.com) is retiring. Whoever the Freeholder and Clerk candidates are they need to help by building the party up in the more rural areas.

SUSSEX COUNTY
Freeholder Susan Zellman (R-inc), Freeholder Glen Vetrano (R-inc), and County Surrogate Nancy Fitzgibbons. Freeholder Vetrano is retiring, which means there is an opportunity for Democrats to make a play at an open seat. This county is as red as it gets in New Jersey, but any effort to register more voters will help the cause in 2010.

WARREN COUNTY
Freeholder Everett A. Chamberlain (R-inc) is the only countywide official up for reelection in Warren County. Like Sussex, this is a very Republican county. However, the city of Phillipsburg has a Democratic Majority and is a place Democrats can build around in Warren.

This isn’t even mentioning of the Assembly seats (and countless municipal races) up for grabs in NJ-5, which should be another vehicle for organization and preparation for 2010. Winning in 2010 will be on the heels of a local, grassroots movement that begins with these races in 2009.

I had the opportunity to attend a MoveOn event yesterday with one of my fellow Retire Garrett partners, Michael Simonson, where we (around 25-30 of us) were going to head to Garrett’s “new” Glen Rock office to discuss the upcoming stimulus bill and the importance of bringing jobs (especially green jobs) to the District.

MoveOn’s local organizer had contacted Garrett’s office, and was advised that at least one of his staff would be in the new Glen Rock office, which replaced the old one on Route 4 in Paramus. His staff was aware of our mission, and we were armed with signs, stories and pleas for Garrett to do the right thing for the district and help out his constituents.

After all, NJ gets less back from the Federal government than any other state relative to what our taxpayers send to the Feds, and the “budget hawk” line of crap is shot to hell when you realize that he voted for every single no-strings-attached dollar (and there were hundreds of billions of them) sent to the Iraq sinkhole.

Oh yeah, and we need jobs and infrastructure here too.

So, as you can see from the pics below, we were ready to talk to his office, but when we got there, it was locked and empty – as if they hadn’t even moved in yet. This, despite the fact that we said we were coming and were told that someone would be in that very closed and empty Glen Rock office.

Why is Garrett afraid of talking about more jobs for his district?

Now, I know that he will vote against this bill, as he would be proud to vote against women, children, puppies or most likely flowers and rainbows too, and that is why I think that finding (and funding) a candidate to take him down in 2010 (or if we are stuck with him after redistricting, 2012) – as the man just can’t be reasoned with.

He must go.

Now, enjoy some of the pics…..

This is the MoveOn organizer (whose name I am keeping anonymous because I don’t know if she wants it out there, so I am being cautious), sitting on the floor outside Garrett’s office on 2 cell phones – one with Garrett’s DC office and one with his NJ office.

Here we are outside of his office. Which, did I mention, was empty and dark and locked?

One of us outside and across the street

Two more of us, a retiree and a doctor with stories that are heart wrenching.

Cross posted from BlueJersey.com (thanks to Jason Springer)Remember how Scott Garrett showed last week how he hated women by voting against not one but two bills that would provide fairness to women in the workplace as it related to equal pay? Well, there’s more:

The House of Representatives today voted to expand SCHIP to 4 million more children by a vote of 289-139:

“Soon we will have a new president who has committed himself to reforming our nation’s health care system so every American can access affordable and quality health care.” said Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J. “The bill we are considering today makes a down-payment on that promise.”

This bill was passed without a veto threat looming as was the case with the previous administration. Maybe that was motivation for Rodney Frelinghuysen to switch his prior no vote to support healthcare for children. Here’s how they voted on this one:

Democrats are in blue, and Republicans are in red.

Here’s what Congressman Rothman said about the passage:

“Passage of this bill in the new Congress is a strong first step toward solving the crisis of the uninsured in America,” said Rothman. “Right now there are 47 million Americans surviving without health insurance, including 1.3 million in my home state of New Jersey. These families are living in constant fear that a sudden illness or injury could result in financial ruin. That is why it is so important that we take swift and meaningful action. Providing healthcare coverage for an additional 4 million children is a powerful example of what we can accomplish on a whole host of problems facing our country. I look forward to working with the new President and my colleagues in Congress toward bringing additional changes for the better to New Jersey and the entire country.”

Congressman Holt also noted that this legislation includes language for mental health parity:

“I long have fought for mental health parity, and was pleased that last year we could improve mental health coverage for private insurance plans and Medicare. I am encouraged that we have now extended this to the SCHIP program.”

Americans United for change had this to say about Garrett’s opposition:

“Congressman Garrett should explain to New Jersey families why he voted to deny healthcare for millions of children in need, especially in these tough economic times. With thousands of Americans losing their jobs each day, the SCHIP program has become more critical than ever as more and more parents struggle to find affordable health insurance for their children. Despite Garrett’s opposition, this critical legislation to expand the SCHIP program passed with broad bipartisan support in Congress today, with the Senate expected to follow suit. President-Elect Obama will soon sign this long overdue legislation into law so that millions of parents no longer have to pray their children don?t get sick or hurt or ask themselves: ‘Is it bad enough to go to the doctor?”

I’m sure Garrett doesn’t mind, but he stands alone on this one. Maybe he can take children to the doctor with his health insurance.

Matt Fretz at Blog The Fifth points out another gem from Scott “the nut” Garrett:

Finally, she made a good point as well, and I will close on this, market, heal thyself, is what she said. Likewise here, whether it’s the credit market, the financial market or the unemployment market, we can allow the private sector, with the assist of the government getting out-of-the-way for the market to heal thyself in those situations as well in the appropriate manner.

One of the biggest misconceptions about Garrett is that he is a “budget hawk” or a “deficit hawk” – however he has consistently voted for countless hundreds of billions going to a sinkhole in Iraq with no oversight whatsoever, making him at least a hypocrite, if not an irresponsible hypocrite.

And when it comes to the bailout, or even the stimulus package of 2008, I do agree with him on the most basic premise, which is that the bills put forth by Congress were not ones that I would have voted for. But my preference would not be tax rebates that would be handed right over to the credit card, gas or retail companies (which I said at the time wouldn’t do anything meaningful for families), and I don’t think that financial institutions, auto companies or other big businesses should get billions of dollars with no oversight. Money that directly helps families over the short, medium and long-term with their bills or to stay in their homes – not corporate tax cuts – is really what Americans need.

With Garrett, it is more a case of a broken clock being right twice a day, and you still don’t want to rely on it. His preference (and a bill he put forth himself) for a stimulus package was 100% corporate tax cuts. And here too, Garrett shows that he prefers the same “free market forces” and deregulation that got our economy into this mess to magically fix itself.

This type of blind ideology is exactly what we do NOT need now – and prayers, magic pixie dust, burying our heads in the sand, flying spaghetti monsters, more deregulation and corporate tax breaks will only make things worse.

The problem here is that Garrett is held up as some sort of “hero” for speaking out against what may not be a great idea when anyone that looks even a centimeter below the surface will see that it is for all the wrong reasons.

Even members of his own party think he is a nut. And he consistently proves them right with statements like the one above and a complete misunderstanding of the most basic problems facing families in the District.