Out of the Mainstream - even in his own party

Front paged at Blue Jersey

It is one thing to be out of step with what the American people want - whether it be on Iraq, on government spending, on having close ties to convicted republican felon Jack Abramoff or many other areas where Scott Garrett seems to excel.

But when it comes to Garrett's House votes, even to members of his own party, Garrett is far outside of the mainstream.

This past week (ending March 9), there were three major votes in the House. And our "esteemed" Representative was on the wrong side of all three. All three votes passed - Garrett voted against all three.

But that only tells part of the story.

Addressing Global Warming: The House voted 269-150 in favor of HR 202, which provided funding for energy independence and an advisory panel on global warming. Over 40 other Republican House Members voted for the measure, including EVERY OTHER NJ REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE.

Reclaimed Water and Sewage Overflow Grants: These were even more egregious, as these bills passed by 368-59 and 367-58 votes, respectively. The Reclaimed Water vote (HR 700) authorized $125 million in grants (the same cost of approximately one hour spent in Iraq) for developing alternate water sources for homes, farms and industries. Once again, Garrett was the ONLY NJ REPRESENTATIVE to vote against this bill.

The Sewage Overflow Grants bill (HR 569) authorized $1.8 billion (less than a week's worth of costs in Iraq) over five years to upgrade city sewerage systems. And once again, Garrett stands along among NJ republicans in voting against this bill.

Scott Garrett is not only out of touch with the American public and his own district, he is dangerously out of step with his own party.

Not just his own party, but his vote was out of step with every other NJ House representative.

It is time for him to go.

Dick Support

And I want to thank all of you for coming, first and foremost, to give our support to a great member of Congress, Scott Garrett. I'm proud to stand with you and I bring good wishes to all of you from the President, George W. Bush.
...
When future generations look back on our time, they will know that we met our moment with courage and clear thinking. And they'll know that America became a better nation -- stronger, more prosperous, and more secure -- under the leadership of President George W. Bush. (Applause.)

We'll continue making progress for the American people -- and it's vital that we have strong partners like Scott Garrett in the Congress of the United States.

-Dick Cheney, June 30, 2006 (at $1000 a plate)

Yep. Making lots of progress....

Garrett- CEO Pay A.O.K.

House debates shareholder role in executive pay

WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers clashed today on whether shareholders should have a louder voice in approving executive pay, while a top regulator scolded companies for failing to deliver the clear-cut pay disclosures now expected by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

OK. So something needs to be done about executive pay disclosure. Not about the amount, mind you, about the fact that compensation isn't adequately reported to shareholders.

The SEC action "makes it easier to go forward," said Frank, who has argued that shareholders have the right -- and the wisdom -- to have a say in what's appropriate pay for their executives.

"To have a say." We're not talking about putting a cap on CEO pay here. (That's an argument for another time.) All that's being said is that shareholders have a right to know. If a representative put their constituents first, this would be a no-brainer.

But Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) worried that the proposal could pave the way for more intrusive government involvement in corporate pay decisions.

He compared Frank's proposal to "the camel's nose under the tent -- and I just wonder where we might go next."

So let me see if I understand. Tax cuts for the Paris Hilton crowd- great. Secret pay deals for CEOs- perfect. Tax cuts to Big Oil- awesome. Katrina aid- hell no. Clean water- nope.

Yup. Ernie's really got his finger on the pulse of NJ5. Seriously, folks. This guy's got to go.

An oldie but goodie...

This is from last year's "Hannity Freedom Concert" (Sorry. Writing that made me vomit in my mouth a bit.) :

Scott Garrett gives a hearty thanks to Craig Schelske for all of his support.

So who is Craig Schelske, you ask?

Well, according to "Dancing With the Stars" participant and his (soon to be?) ex-wife, Sara Evans, he's the guy who:

• Keeps over 100 obscene pictures of himself on his computers


• Keeps several photographs of himself having sex with other women


• Solicited various types of sexual activity over the internet through Craigslist


• Frequently threatened and verbally abused her


• Watched "pornographic material" in front of one of their young children


• Would not let a "Dancing with the Stars" costume designer into their home because he is a "sodomite"


• Said that one of their young children "broke out in hives because he saw the costume designer who is a 'sodomite'"


• "Refused to let (their) children go to a performance to hear their mother sing The Star Spangled Banner"

I guess it doesn't count if they raise money for you.

A Democrat in 2008

I supported Paul Aronsohn in 2006. And I am a big fan of his. He is smart, he is energetic, and he demonstrated his tenacity in a campaign that was dogged by a lack of attention by the national party committees.

Paul is thinking about running again in 2008. I've discussed this with him and I think it's a good idea.

But I will not endorse a particular candidate in the Democratic primary until the various candidates prove themselves worthy of support. We should not blindly support any one candidate, and Governor Corzine and Chairman Cryan should be wary of throwing their support behind a candidate this early in the race.

I hope Paul runs. But there should be a vigorous Democratic primary that will encourage the candidates to hone their policy positions and become better candidates to face Garrett in 2008.

The one thing I will say here and now, I will not support any candidate who negatively attacks another Democrat in the race. So for those Democrats out there that think it's a smart idea to get nasty, forget it. Let's stay focused on the real opponent, extremist Scott Garrett.

I invite all the Democratic candidates to lay out their reasons for running here on Retire Garrett. And I hope our site can host a live Democratic primary debate, live blogged for every candidate to see free of charge.

So come one, come all, our minds are open.

What exactly does he stand for?

I'm not always on the same page as the US Chamber of Commerce, but you'd think "anti-tax" zealot Ernie Garrett would be, especially when it comes to tax relief legislation. Maybe it's only tax cuts for the wealthy that he supports and we're on our own. (Unless, of course we want to make a decision about how we live our lives. I digress...)

February 13, 2007

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OR REPRESENTATIVES:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation representing more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, urges you to support H.R. 976, the “Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007.” This legislation provides tax relief to assist small businesses’ job growth.

... and how did the NJ contingent vote?

New Jersey
Aye NJ-1 Andrews, Robert [D]
No Vote NJ-2 LoBiondo, Frank [R]
Aye NJ-3 Saxton, H. [R]
Aye NJ-4 Smith, Christopher [R]
Nay NJ-5 Garrett, E. [R]
Aye NJ-6 Pallone, Frank [D]
Aye NJ-7 Ferguson, Michael [R]
Aye NJ-8 Pascrell, William [D]
Aye NJ-9 Rothman, Steven [D]
Aye NJ-10 Payne, Donald [D]
Aye NJ-11 Frelinghuysen, Rodney [R]
Aye NJ-12 Holt, Rush [D]
Aye NJ-13 Sires, Albio [D]

Surprise, surprise! What a hypocrite. So what exactly does Garrett stand for?

The DCCC is targeting Republican Seats in NJ - Garrett's one of them

I saw this over on Blue Jersey as reported in The Hill (http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/021407_van.html). The DCCC is targeting some Republican held seats, among them is Garrett's seat.

In the state’s 5th district, Republican Rep. Scott Garrett should, by all traditional measures, be in significant trouble heading into 2008.

Garrett won last year with 55 percent of the vote, and a consultant familiar with the district said he has continued to be successful largely because of historically Republican Bergen County, part of which Garrett represents.

The problem, or problems, for Garrett lie in a county GOP that was once consolidated and strong, but in recent years has fallen into near-total disarray — the Rothenberg Report recently noted the party’s county headquarters was padlocked earlier this year because of failure to pay rent.

The phones at the county headquarters are apparently disconnected; repeated calls to the number listed on its website were met with an operator’s message.

That “collapse,” as the consultant put it, could lead to a primary challenge for Garrett, opening the door to an early-funded Democrat riding the strength of a county Democratic Party that has grown in influence.

This is good news.

Garrett strikes again...

Holy hypocrite, Batman!

North Jersey Republicans said balancing the budget, which Bush and the Democrats have said is a goal, requires hard choices. Rep. Scott Garrett, R-Wantage, said the president's budget represents "a positive step" toward that goal, and warned against Democrats' raising taxes to afford more spending.

"Every family in America must set priorities and make difficult decisions when putting together a household budget, and the federal government should be no different," said Garrett, a member of the House Budget Committee. "I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle will remember that ... every dollar that goes into the federal budget is a dollar that comes out of a family budget."

With all due respect, Mr. Garrett, hard choices? How dare you? How dare you preach fiscal discipline to us? Have I missed your outrage during your years in office, when you and your Republican colleagues spent like drunken sailors? Did I miss you speaking out against Bush's failure to veto a single spending bill? (His first veto, as you know, was against stem cell research.) Did I miss your press conference when you spoke out against waste and corruption in Iraq? War profiteering? No-bid contracts? Tax breaks for big oil?

It seems to me that a fiscal conservative would understand that all of that money would have gone a long way.

I guess it doesn't matter. No one in NJ5 is paying attention, right?

Simple Math:

This:

Exxon earnings top record
$39.5 billion is biggest annual profit in U.S.

Plus This:

For years, Congress and the White House have established an energy policy written by and for the benefit of Big Oil. Thursday’s vote signals a change: that lawmakers don’t want taxpayers to pay billions of dollars of subsidies to companies like ExxonMobil, and that this country will begin making the necessary investments in clean energy rather than relying on polluting energy sources.

***Nay NJ-5 Garrett, E. [R]***

Equals This:

Horrible, out of touch, representation. (No surprise for those of us watching.)

Garrett to NJ College Students: DROP DEAD

An extra $260 may help with college costs

Tens of thousands of North Jersey college students would get more financial aid this fall from a sweeping $463.5 billion spending bill approved Wednesday by the House.

The bill, which faces quick action in the Senate, provides the first increase in four years to the maximum Pell Grant, a program for needy college students.

...

"It really makes a big difference," said Steven M. Rose, president of Passaic County Community College. "Many of our students are making maybe $10,000 a year. A lot are working for minimum wage. If you have to pay $500 for books, you have to work a lot of hours to earn that."

Nearly half the students at the Passaic college get Pell Grants, while 1 in 5 attending Bergen Community College gets them. Among the state colleges, New Jersey City University has the highest proportion of students receiving Pell Grants, almost 1 in 3.

Wow. Talk about a no-brainer, huh?

Voting against it were Reps. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-Harding, and Scott Garrett, R-Wantage.

I guess it doesn't matter. No one in the 5th district is paying attention, right?

Introducing Garrett Watch

Interesting and certainly timely to see this post asking for bloggers to help take down Scott Garrett as I have been thinking of a few ways to do this, and what is needed.

There really are two main thought processes here - the first is what I will call "Garrett Watch" which is to take stock of and follow his votes, actions and other things that can be used against him. This would consist of documentation (like the "Retire Garrett" site but maybe more along the lines of "dumpmike"), as well as a long term effort to get OpEds, LTE's, calls to radio shows, etc. in order to spread the word of Garrett's more extreme of his already extreme votes and views.

The other is more of a "data collection/analysis" approach, which I will explain more below:

For starters, there needs to be a broken down understanding of this district. There are (I believe) four counties represented and they are pretty different in terms of demographics and priorities. We need a more targeted approach, at least for each county.

Data MUST be available that would give voting breakdowns by county, age, income, etc. as well as other types of information that would be helpful (unrelated to voting).

We have more than a few months to compile this as well as figure out what data is good for us - (e.g., clubs, political contributions, etc.) and once we have it, we can update it accordingly.

This would be immensely valuable to any campaign and there is no reason why, with what we have here, we can't do this.

Hell, since I was going to do it anyway, I'll take the lead or coordinate it.

Back to the first part - there was already a vote in the House (HR 6), which had a few parts to it.

It should be noted that Garrett voted AGAINST the "pay as you go" for earmarks - so this should be positioned as him being against control of the budget, for pork barrel spending and someone who is a "borrow and spender". Let's start branding him appropriately.

The other noteworthy vote was in favor of an amendment which failed that dealt with granting the minority party more rights and reforms. Sounds good on the surface, until you realize that the Democrats tried on numerous occasions to get a "Minority Bill of Rights" passed in prior Congresses but the republicans WOULDN'T EVEN LET IT COME TO THE FLOOR.

Paint Garrett a hypocrite and an obstructionist here.

******************

You see where I am going with this. There is no reason that NJ-5 should have Garrett as it's representative. There is more than enough ammo to take him down in 2008. Add to that his ties to Abramoff and his solid status as a rubber stamp for Bush's failed occupation of Iraq and we are off to a real good start.

I will keep this up with respect to his voting record as I see things, but please -- if anyone wants to post something on this, or sees something and wants to pass it along -- do not hesitate to contact me.

********************

Garrett must go. Let's make sure it happens.

Fight On!

As many of you know, Paul Aronsohn lost on Tuesday, but he came closer to beating Scott Garrett than any of his predecessors. In 2002, Scott Garrett won 61% of the vote, in 2004, 58%, and in 2006, 55%. This is a long-term struggle, and will require at least one more election cycle before we can beat Garrett. The more people learn about his extremist rhetoric, the more they want a change.

Paul wrote an email to supporters claiming he is proud of the passion in the campaign. He wrote that his "inclination is to run again."

We'll keep fighting here at Retire Garrett, and we'll make this blog much better than it was in the past. No more hiding, Mr. Garrett, we'll find you.

I invite all of you to give me and Sidd Finch ideas on how we can build this people-powered movement for change in the 5th district of New Jersey and how we can win in two years.

Click through. Google will love you for it!

--NJ-05: Scott Garrett

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl

--AZ-01: Rick Renzi

--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth

--CA-04: John Doolittle

--CA-11: Richard Pombo

--CA-50: Brian Bilbray

--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave

--CO-05: Doug Lamborn

--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell

--CT-04: Christopher Shays

--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan

--FL-16: Joe Negron

--FL-22: Clay Shaw

--ID-01: Bill Sali

--IL-06: Peter Roskam

--IL-10: Mark Kirk

--IL-14: Dennis Hastert

--IN-02: Chris Chocola

--IN-08: John Hostettler

--IA-01: Mike Whalen

--KS-02: Jim Ryun

--KY-03: Anne Northup

--KY-04: Geoff Davis

--MD-Sen: Michael Steele

--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht

--MN-06: Michele Bachmann

--MO-Sen: Jim Talent

--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns

--NV-03: Jon Porter

--NH-02: Charlie Bass

--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson

--NM-01: Heather Wilson

--NY-03: Peter King

--NY-20: John Sweeney

--NY-26: Tom Reynolds

--NY-29: Randy Kuhl

--NC-08: Robin Hayes

--NC-11: Charles Taylor

--OH-01: Steve Chabot

--OH-02: Jean Schmidt

--OH-15: Deborah Pryce

--OH-18: Joy Padgett

--PA-04: Melissa Hart

--PA-07: Curt Weldon

--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick

--PA-10: Don Sherwood

--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee

--TN-Sen: Bob Corker

--VA-Sen: George Allen

--VA-10: Frank Wolf

--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick

--WA-08: Dave Reichert

Michael J Fox hits Garrett- HARD

Cross posted at bluejersey.com

OK. Maybe he's talking about another nutjob, Senator Jim Talent, but substitute "Garrett" for "Talent" and "New Jersey" for "Missouri" and you've got an ad for the NJ5 race. A real powerful ad, and exactly the kind of thing the people of New Jersey's 5th district should know about E. Scott Garrett.

Paul Aronsohn is a strong supporter of embryonic stem cell research—for personal and policy reasons—and he has been very public about his support.

His opponent, incumbent Scott Garrett, fundamentally opposes embryonic stem cell research—a fact demonstrated by his actions in Congress, press reports, and public statements.

Please help Paul win this race..

Chicken a la Garrett

Bergen Record today: Where's Garrett?

Garrett, a Republican representing the district that stretches from Warren across northern Passaic and Bergen counties, is facing a challenge from Democrat Paul Aronsohn. He and Garrett have diametrically opposing views on key issues, from abortion rights to embryonic stem cell research to offshore oil drilling. Voters in this district would benefit from hearing the two candidates challenge each other's positions.

But Garrett is refusing to appear alongside Aronsohn in any forum where more than a tiny fraction of the district's voters could see or hear them.

Is Garrett afraid of something? Is this Sussex County congressman trying to hide his record and views from voters, specifically from voters in Bergen and Passaic counties, who tend to be more politically moderate?

In a word, yes. He banks on the fact that people won't notice that he's an out of touch wingnut.

Interesting choice...

10/9/06 UPDATE:

Looks like the Daily Record isn't too happy about Garrett's cherry picking, either:

...

Rep. Scott Garrett, like most candidates, knows the importance of selective reading. A few months ago, a Daily Record editorial criticized Garrett for opposing a measure to ban price gouging by oil companies. It noted that Garrett, who faces a spirited challenge in the 5th Congressional District from Democrat Paul Aronsohn, thinks government should do as little as possible. It said, for example, that Garrett has opposed a President Bush-backed plan to extend unemployment benefits and federal money for Katrina relief.

But one line in the editorial praised Garrett for being "one of those rare politicians who seems to put his principles over political expediency."

What line do you think the Garrett campaign picked up and used on a mailer to district voters? You got it, the one about putting principle first. This is like an advertisement for a movie that cherry-picks one line from a lousy review for marketing purposes.

A spokeswoman for the Garrett campaign noted that the candidate simply picked up a line that had appeared in print.

Thursday, October 05, 2006
As I mentioned in a comment earlier, I received a snazzy mailer from "independent" Congressman Scott Garrett. (Someone must have screwed up, since the mailer failed to mention that Mr. Garrett is a Republican.) The cover of the piece, entitled "An independent voice, getting results", shows a quote from the May 9, 2006 Daily Record:

"Scott Garrett is one of those rare politicians who seems to put his principles over political expediency."

An impressive endorsement for an "independent" politician, huh? Well, I decided to take a look at the whole article, just to confirm how wonderful Mr. Garrett is. Here are some other quotes from the piece that Mr. Garrett could have used:

Garrett, R-Wantage, last week was one of 34 House members and the only one from New Jersey to vote no on a bill to make gas-price gouging a crime.

or...

Garrett firmly believes in a government that should do as little as possible.

or...

Recall that one of his first votes in Congress was opposing a plan by President Bush to extend unemployment benefits for those in need.

or...

He also has opposed money for Katrina relief.

or...

Devotion to principle is important, but there are times when concessions should be made to what's best for the public.

Seems to me that Mr. Garrett should be writing movie posters- "This movie is the greatest..." example of crappy filmmaking I've ever seen!- not representing the good people of New Jersey's 5th district.

Contribute. Volunteer. Support Paul Aronsohn.

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.