He used to be Congressman. He basically would parrot GOP talking points when I spoke to him twice. He is a lamo and GOP sycophant. People in the 5th love him though.
A few questions for Scott Garrett:
--Health care. Why did you send an e-mail to your constituents last fall that claimed, erroneously, that the Health Care Reform Act would: forbid the purchase of private individual coverage; cause 114 million people to lose coverage; force members of Congress to purchase the public option (which is ironic, in that members of Congress have the best government health plan of all).
--Economy. Why were you one of only 12 House members (in November 2009) to vote against an extension of unemployment benefits and homebuyer tax credits?
--Republican Party. A recent poll by a non-partisan polling organization of 2,000 self-identified Republicans nationwide found that 58% believe Obama was not born in the U.S. or weren’t sure; 63% think Obama is a socialist; 53% think Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama; and 73% think openly gay men and women should not be able to teach in public schools. Do these views reflect your own?
There is a certain amout of risk to all lending Mr. Garrett, that's why the payback is so great. Nobody is advocating reckless irresponsible lending, however stable prudent lending is the only thing that is going to pull us from this morass. It's politicians like Mr. Garrett and their short sighted policies that have us in this financial crisis, now we're to believe they have the answers on getting us out.
Please be sure to follow up with the congressman about his view and action in 2004 when the banks' leverage was increased.
Even more, why not a show on who was responsible for that increase; whether the "community mortgage program" (not sure of the correct name; intended to encourage and help home ownereship for those less able) contributed to the collapse; and one or two other possible culprits.
Whatever the cause(s), it (they) would have to explain the collapse in commercial real estate and in other countries as well.
Why did you allow him to repeat the same tired Republican talking points about Obama refusing to take Republican healthcare ideas. When this was brought up at the "debate" last week, Obama specifically pointed out that the health care bill included many Republican ideas. And that he was open to Republican ideas provided they worked and met the standards of bipartisan experts.
Congressman Garrett's support for an across-the-board small business tax cut as a means to add employment misses the point entirely. I'm an employer who is constantly challenged to motivate employee performance. If I want someone to sell more, I don't say "Here's some money, I hope you sell something." I say, "When you sell something, you'll get a bonus or a commission." If the intent is to stimulate employment, then business incentives need to be DIRECTLY tied to creation of a job. Pay the employer when he creates a job. Give banks money they can use ONLY to loan to a business creating jobs. Merely handing out tax cuts and checks with no reciprocal requirement is foolishness. If you claim to be making policy to create an intended effect, your incentives need to be directly tied to the creation of that effect. Pay for performance. Any sales manager will tell you that's how incentives work.
I can't believe that Scott Garrett wants to leave it to companies on how they will use the jobs stimulus monies. To say that the companies could decide to give to their existing employees who have had to suffer cutbacks recently goes against creating jobs. What about the people who have been out of work TOTALLY for several months or even over a year???? That does NOTHING to alleviate the jobs problem that we have. The stimulus should ONLY be allowed for creating jobs - not filling the pockets of those who have been lucky enough to keep their jobs. I'm glad for them, but those of us out-of-work are hurting way more than any paycuts. Rep. Garrett does not have a solution that I could endorse.
This was one of the best interviewing jobs I've heard Brian or anyone else do. Garrett obviously is not accustomed to having intelligent and considerate challenges.
Republicans just want donation money.. Everything they say kisses up to the doners- banks doctors insurance companies - it seems to work for them ... Very unproductive bunch at a time when people want action.. not a good combination...
Democrats dont seem any better though...
So lets vote all the incumbents OUT and give them something to think about...
Does Mr.Garrett suggest that gay orlesbian soldiers would be a disturbance to their collegus during the course of their responsibilities?
Ask the congressman what else isn’t important to vote on during this time of 10% joblessness and two wars? I just want to know so when I hear he’s voted for naming a bridge, declaring something, getting pork for his district, and all of the silly day to day nonessentials he can be called on his s*#t.(By the way, if he’s so busy with the war and jobs, why was he on a retreat not doing his job?)
as a fiscal conservative and a northeast representative does the congress person feel it is appropriate that the federal government (and northeast taxpayers) should subsidize poor unsustainable southern, mountain and plains states. will he support ending these RED welfare states and let the free market have it's way?http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm
your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the
right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the
Comment Guidelines before
By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's
It's your neighborhood, your city, your country, your world, and now your website. Brian Lehrer delves into the issues and links them to real life.