Retire Garrett

In this Sunday’s Record, columnist Herb Jackson discusses a government-sponsored public service programs bill that had broad support in the House of Representatives, passing with a bipartisan 321-105 vote.

Jackson also mentions that 9th District Rep. Steve Rothman voted for the bill and praised it for encouraging people to volunteer in their communities. The column quotes a food pantry worker who said there isn’t enough outside funding and assistance for their organization to care for all the families who need it.

In the last paragraph of the story, and of his column, Jackson writes this:

Rep. Scott Garrett, R-Wantage, was the only member of the New Jersey delegation to vote against the bill. Garrett did not speak during debate, but opponents voiced concern about the cost of the measure.

Also covered by Blog the Fifth

In what has become something akin to a broken record, Scott Garrett was the lone NJ Representative to vote for something.  In this case, the vote was to preserve $165 million of bonuses paid to AIG employees who were responsible for nearly bringing down the entire company.

With our tax dollars.

This would be bad enough in and of itself, as half of ALL House republicans voted against Garrett on this, but if you look at the hypocrisy that is Scott Garrett, it makes it even worse.  This man claims to be a “budget hawk” when he votes against the stimulus bill (which would bring thousands of jobs to the district) or when he votes against things like mortgage relief for struggling families or health insurance for children or raising educational standards – but he has consistently voted for never-ending billions for Iraq with no oversight.

And now, this.

So this same man who brings close to zero dollars to the people of his district – not through earmarks (even though NJ is last in the country in money received from the Federal Government relative to what its citizens send in tax dollars), not through votes on bills that would help the economy here – is one to vote for letting $165 million of our tax dollars go unchecked to those who had a huge hand in creating the financial crisis that this country, state and district now faces.

Just think about the number of jobs or number of households facing foreclosure (with 2 out of the top 4 (and 3 of the top 8) counties in the entire state in number of foreclosures during January), or children without healthcare, or number of crumbling roads in the district that could benefit from $165,000,000 which Garrett would rather see go to people who don’t live in the district in return for screwing up the economy.

This isn’t a “budget hawk”.  This is someone who is beholden to corporate interests and not the people he is supposed to represent.

In a recent column, Herb Jackson calls Congressman Scott Garrett (R-Fringe Right Wing) out on yet another instance of him being “Mr. 12-1″ as the only NJ delegation member to vote in a particular way (read: the wrong way) on a bill. This time, it was a bill that failed by 2 votes, and in typical Garrett fashion, he “explains his vote” (which Jackson is too generous with that headline) by creating a false perception of himself as someone who just wants to do the right thing only if the evil pork projects which are a small part of the bill itself weren’t in there. So because he don’t like it completely, he has to make sure that nobody gets anything. The only problem is that Garrett completely distorts his actual position with a laundry list of things that are mere symbolism and no real meaning.

“If only”…”if only”…Once again. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Garrett says the following (emphasis mine):

“If The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 only contained spending that truly improved and protected our environment, I would whole-heartedly support its passage. The legislation, however, bundles good projects with pork projects and spending of $5.5 billion over five years. Examples of pork in the bill include $3.5 million to the city of St. Augustine, FL for a birthday party, $200,000 for a tropical botanical garden in Hawaii and $250,000 to study the birthplace of Alexander Hamilton in the U.S. Virgin Islands.”This is appalling, especially in a time of economic crisis when the American people are looking to Washington to cease the excessive federal spending that continues to bloat our national debt. It’s time to get serious about fiscal responsibility and do more than simply pay lip service to the concept.”

As a member of the Land Conservation Caucus, Congressman Garrett has a strong record as a supporter of environmental protection, taking the following actions to protect the environment:

And then it lists a number of things like making a phone call for someone or signing a letter or 2 or “providing comments concerning”.

If by “strong record as a supporter”, you mean “is very much against”, then sure – he isn’t full of it. But the truth is, Garrett is one of the worst, if not the worst Congressmen when it comes to his actual voting record on environmental issues.

I know, you’re shocked. SHOCKED!!!

But it is true – Just a few years ago, he was actually THE worst in Congress by at least three or four different measures – and one of the worst since the 1970′s. Project VoteSmart’s list of his ratings on Environmental Issues is telling, as he has perfect ratings from interest groups on the farthest of the right. In fact, he only ranked a score of 33 by the Republicans for Environmental Protection group.

Even his own party even thinks he is, in their own words, a “nut”.

We wrote about this particular issue a couple of months ago over at Retire Garrett and this likely won’t be the last time this year we will be writing about it again.

The Inaugural Take Back the 5th Town Hall was an unqualified success (Read about it in this week’s edition of the Northern Valley Suburbanite)! The Retire Garrett Campaign and the Take the 5th PAC would like to thank everyone who participated, whether as an audience member or as a speaker.
 
Nearly 40 people from across the 5th District, from as far away as Sussex, Warren, and Passaic Counties, came to the Demarest Borough Hall on Sunday, March 1st to get involved in the process of unseating Congressman Scott Garrett and electing a progressive, open-minded individual to the United States House of Representatives (and that was with an impending snow storm). Some of the 5th District’s leading political figures addressed the audience, including (More after the break):

Read more…

 The Northern Valley Suburbanite, which covers local news for (you guessed it) the Northern Valley region of Bergen County, published an article on the Retire Garrett Campaign’s inaugural “Take Back the 5th Town Hall”:

Garrett on the mind of Dems
By Michelle Sartor
News Editor | March 5 2009

DEMAREST — Channeling President Barack Obama’s successful “Yes We Can” campaign slogan, area Democrats are organizing to successfully win Scott Garrett’s (R) congressional seat in the 2010 election.

A group of about 30 Democrats from New Jersey’s 5th Congressional District, some from as far away as Phillipsburg, met March 1 to discuss how best to get a Democrat, or even a moderate Republican, elected to represent the residents in the district, which encompasses towns in Bergen, Passaic, Sussex and Warren counties.

The town hall meeting, held at the Demarest Borough Hall, was a joint effort between Take Back the 5th Campaign and Campaign to Retire Garrett. Both groups are committed to defeating Garrett in the 2010 election.

“Take Back the 5th is an all volunteer political action committee,” explained George Hertzberg, director of the group, which was formed immediately after the November 2008 election. He said his organization will conduct research and present information to voters about Garrett’s record, while Retire Garrett will search for a candidate. More after the break:

Read more…

In today’s Bergen Record, Herb Jackson notes the following quote earlier in the week by our “esteemed” Congressman:

Rep. Scott Garrett, R-Wantage, questioned whether the Obama administration is simply prolonging economic bad news rather than preventing it with its latest plan to assist homeowners facing foreclosure.At a House Financial Services Committee hearing Wednesday where Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke testified, Garrett voiced the anger of families that have been paying their mortgages and didn’t buy houses they couldn’t afford. Here’s part of a statement he released afterward:

“I’m worried that the administration’s proposed efforts will only delay the inevitable full correction of the market, while saddling future generations with tens of billions of dollars of additional debt.

“Delaying the onset of a true housing bottom, it seems to me, has other unintended negative consequences, as well. Not until we reach a bottom will we begin to provide certainty on the value of so-called toxic mortgage-related assets found on financial institutions’ balance sheets around the world. The uncertainty surrounding the value of these assets is one of the main contributors to the downward spiral of our economy, so the sooner we reach certainty, the better.”

Of course, Garrett would love nothing more than to let the “free market” do its thing, as we know how much he trusts corporations to “do the right thing” (as witnessed by his very own stimulus bill last year consisting entirely of corporate tax breaks, even though corporate tax breaks have been proven to be the single worst “stimulator” of the economy).

The problem here is that Garrett is supposed to represent people and families, as opposed to corporations, and if you were to look at a summary of foreclosures in January 2009 by county, Passaic, Sussex and Warren Counties are ranked first, fourth and eighth in the state in homes foreclosed.

What does Garrett propose that these families do while waiting for a “true housing bottom”? What is Garrett’s plan for helping the families out in his own district – with not one, not two but THREE of the top eight counties in terms of foreclosures?

I guess those families can wait for the corporate tax breaks to put food on their table, find them a new place to live or pay for heat.