Garrett and Iraq

E. Scott Garrett to the House of Representatives - September 09, 2004:

"Madam Speaker, Iraqis are not lashing out through political activism, they are shooting American soldiers. They are killing the very same people who have come to help them."

So, on September 9, 2004, E. Scott Garrett recognized that IRAQIS were shooting at American Soldiers. Well, here we are TWO YEARS LATER and he still says stay the course? What's the definition of insanity again?

Well, speaking of insanity, maybe we'll find those WMDs that Mr. Garrett still thinks are there:

E. Scott Garrett to the House of Representatives - July 13, 2004:

"So where are the weapons of mass destruction? Where they have always been, in the Iraqi area, within the reach of terrorists, a threat to U.S. troops, the region, and the world community as well."

Seriously, this guy isn't only out of touch with the people of NJ5, he's completely out of touch with reality.

Our President Is Working to Defend and Protect The American People -- (House of Representatives - March 18, 2004)

"Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of the President and his decisions, for I know his one overriding responsibility is to protect and defend the American people, and our President is working to do just that."

In support of the President and his decisions? Plural? Who the heck needs you then, Mr. Garrett? How about asking a freaking question or holding a hearing every once in a while?

Garrett Uses Taxpayer Money to Pay Off Campaign Contributors

Radical Republican Ernie Scott Garrett has taken an unusual step; he's paid one of his Capitol Hill interns. Michael J. Inganamort, III was a rising senior at American University in Washington, D.C. when he received a congressional internship on Capitol Hill during the summer of 2005.

Unlike most internships, this one was paid. It was paid to the tune of $2,201.38 over a seven week period. In fact, as anyone who's ever interned in a congressional office knows, paid internships in a Capitol Hill office are almost unheard of, and almost never go to someone who is not a graduate or law student, let alone a college student.

So what's so special about Michael J. Inganamort, III. His father, Michael J. Inganamort, Jr., contributed $500 to Scott Garrett's campaign for Congress in 2004. And between 2002 and 2006, Michael J. Inganamort, Sr., Michael's grandfather, contributed $3,000 to Scott Garrett's campaigns.

Scott Garrett had other interns during this period. Michael J. Inganamort, III was the only one who was paid.

So why is this important? Scott Garrett takes campaign contributions from contributors and then gives their progeny a cushy Capitol Hill internship with some money to go with it. Well, there's one thing that makes this absurd. This is taxpayer money. And we all know how Scott Garrett feels about taxpayer dollars.

Garrett voted against Hurricane Katrina aid to victims devastated by the disaster. He was one of eleven in the House of Representatives out of 435 to vote against it.

Garrett voted against extending unemployment benefits to those on the unemployment rolls. He was one of four out of 435 in the House of Representatives to do that; it was his first vote in the House too.

And why does he hate helping poor people, and middle class families struggling from capricious natural disasters and the whims of unemployment?

On Garrett's reelection website, he notes that he has "been an outspoken advocate for fiscal restraint, having consistently called for more sanity and accountability in government spending." I guess paying off your campaign contributors with taxpayer money is pretty sane and accountable.

He goes on to say that "the Federal government must stop taking irresponsible liberties with your hard-earned tax dollars." Spending that $2,201.38 on education or health care is far less responsible than giving it to a contributor's kid. Boy, if only we could pay every silver spoon fed child some hard-earned dollars, we could just eliminate Social Security.

Garrett also makes clear that "as [our] Representative in Congress, [he] will continue to work for spending restraint and a shift it priorities away from the federal budget and back to the family budget." Clearly the family budget he's talking about is the Inganamorts' budget. At least he's looking out for some of his constituents.

Scott Garrett is a disgrace. Let's elect a real Representative.

Garrett and Trigger Locks.

From the Brady Campaign:

As the rate of gun violence dramatically increased during the 1980s and early 1990s, American children paid the price. From 1984 to 1994 the firearm death rate for 15-19 year olds increased 222% while the non-firearm homicide death rate decreased almost 13%. While deaths from gunfire have been decreasing since 1994, firearms are still expected to overtake motor vehicle accidents as the leading cause of death among American children.

Cars do kill children: so do poorly-made toys and swimming pools and dozens of common household items. But of all the thousands of products with which children have contact, only one - firearms - are completely exempt from consumer protection regulations. Back in 1972, when the Consumer Product Safety Commission was created, the gun lobby's political power ensured that the one product that is specifically designed to cause death and injury remained exempt. Thus, most handguns have so little trigger resistance that they can be fired by a three-year old, while many guns fire when dropped on the floor. Many popular semi-automatic handguns lack magazine safety disconnects or load indicators, meaning that children have no way of knowing that a gun that appears unloaded actually has a bullet in the chamber.

So something like trigger locks would be a no-brainer, huh?

House suspends trigger lock requirement
Action follows Wednesday's vote barring Justice from enforcing the law

Updated: 6:01 p.m. ET June 29, 2006
WASHINGTON - The House on Thursday passed legislation that would suspend a new requirement that gun dealers provide a trigger lock with every handgun they sell.

The development came on the heels of a 230-191 vote late Wednesday to block the Justice Department from enforcing the trigger lock law. The vote came during debate on a spending measure funding the department's budget.

...

The Senate had voted 70-30 to impose the trigger lock sales mandate, which proponents said would prevent gun accidents and save lives, especially those of children who discover a parent's handgun.

...

A foe of the amendment, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., said that the $5 to $7 that a trigger lock costs is a small price to pay for preventing some of the 30,000 gun deaths that occur in the United States each year.

Makes sense to me. How about you, Mr. Garrett?

Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:

Vote to adopt an amendment that prevents funds in the Commerce Department FY2007 Appropriation bill from being used to enforce a law requiring guns be sold with locks on guns. (Sec. 3014 (f))

Representative E. Scott Garrett voted YES.

Friggin $5 trigger locks. And $26k from the NRA is all it took. That, and a complete disregard for our kids' safety.

Thanks, Ernie.

Contribute. Volunteer. Support Paul Aronsohn.

Who does Ernie work for?

From cq.com today:

Key Executive Invokes the Fifth as House Members Assail BP
Lawmakers today lambasted executives from energy giant BP PLC for maintenance failures on their giant Alaska pipeline, as one key executive invoked his Fifth Amendment rights in refusing to answer questions.
BP announced in early August that it had discovered widespread corrosion requiring replacement of 16 of the 22 miles of “low-stress” oil pipelines at its Prudhoe Bay complex. The repairs have stymied production at a time when gasoline prices and energy policy are near the top of election year concerns.
Members of a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee assailed BP executives for failing to act on evidence indicating that feeder pipelines at the company’s Prudhoe Bay facility were susceptible to widespread corrosion.
Richard Woollam, former manager of the corrosion, inspection and chemicals group for BP Exploration Alaska Inc., invoked his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions at the hearing.
Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., described BP as a “company with bloated profits that has failed to fix bad pipelines.”

From dccc.org:

HOW GARRETT RESPONDS TO HIGH ENERGY PRICES
- Rep. Garrett voted against cracking down on the oil and gas industries price gouging.
- Rep. Garrett voted for the GOP energy bill that gave billions to oil, gas and nuclear industries.
- Big oil and gas industries have given Rep. Garrett $48,000.

Thanks, Ernie.

Seriously, does anyone have evidence of E. Scott Garrett standing up for his constituents? I'd ask him, but he's seems to be avoiding questions, including those from Paul Aronsohn.