I'm a "Jew in Teaneck" and an Obama supporter. I certainly hope Gussen endorses Obama, and I look forward to voting for them both.

Al gives us this outstanding bit of brilliance: "That's the same party our anti-semitic president belongs to." What planet is Al from?

@ Allan E. Fineberg: boy oh boy, you never, ever let facts that are easily found on the internet deter you from your bogus imitation of an "intellectual." Your juvenile protests notwithstanding, the sentiment of "Al" reflects the reality of how Orthodox Jewish voters actually vote:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=obama%20orthodox%20jewish%20vote&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CH4QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2011%2F12%2F15%2Forthodox-jewish-vote-republican-presidential-candidates_n_1148193.html&ei=8UXST42tNYqe8gS8uKnNAw&usg=AFQjCNHejrDOz8skTm8NA26IQTRD5dOJ-w&cad=rja

"In 2008, Obama won 78 percent of the national Jewish vote, but Republican candidate John McCain received 80 percent of the Orthodox community, according to Steven M. Cohen, director of the Berman Jewish Policy Archive in New York."

Not that Obama couldn't persuade this bloc otherwise. Hillary Clinton won virtually the entire vote of the New Square NY enclave in her NY Senate campaign after helping (or being perceived as helping) convicted local crooks get a presidential pardon.

in the future Allan, check out www.google.com and hit the "Google search" button.You'll find incredible stuff! .....GXR

Gussen's Teaneck constituency will vote almost 100% for Romney in the November elections. Gussen will be asking them to split their votes between two parties. He'd better shy away from linking himself in any way with Obama or he'll lose all of his support in Teaneck. Obama is a very hated man in the orthodox (Zionist) Jewish community, although he polls well with non-observant Jews.

And Garrett will still win.

I would not pay too much attention to a troll that may not even be Orthodox himself.

Interesting thing about this primary, however: In the town where people know Gussen best -- Teaneck -- Jason Castle outpolled him.

@Jeff - C'mon. That's because your State Senator and Teanecker had her troops all over town for him.

Jack - that's just total nonsense based on your prejudices not reality.

Assemblyman Gordon Johnson endorsed Castle. And Tom, as you have stated your public support for Castle as well (not to mention your hatred of Gussen) - I'm not sure of your capability of avoiding prejudice here either.

Keith Kaplan excels at bad logic. First Gordon Johnson is not a State Senator so his endorsement of Jason Castle is irrelevant. He also endorsed Mohammed Hameeduddin in the municipal election. Neither were endorsed by the “State Senator and Teanecker”.

Also typical of Kaplan’s logic is putting words in other people’s mouths. I don’t hate Adam Gussen. Actively opposing or supporting someone who runs for political office is not about love or hate.

Lad, please don't bring the late John Abraham (257) into this or speak on his behalf. John was my best friend and he, Adam Gussen and I had numerous meetings/conversations together. Even though John may not have agreed with all of Adam's actions, he did respect the man and vise versa. Never once did John indicate to me that he hated Adam, or even disliked him for that matter, and I highly doubt he would've been offended in any way that Adam attended his funeral, regardless of his political stance. Thank you.

Well said Gerry!

Rothman? Really? What has he done?

He left our town, YEAH! Don't move back Steve, we don't want you here.

That idiot played host to dictators and was proud to tell us about them. He voted for laws which limit liberty and stonewalled anyone with difficult questions.

Art....Don't make it a right wing and left wing thing... there are lunatics on both sides of the aisle... the way to win is to appeal to the basics... think JFK democrat...Most democrats in the county are common sense, hard working, pay taxes and in some cases, don't want the president re-elected. This is about getting an idealogue who does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for Bergen County out of office. Unfortunately, in many instances since Bubba left office (surpluses and all), republicans usually don't win elections, democrats lose 'em. Let's work for Gussen and not link him to idealogues on the far left..

And then who will you blame when the economy stays in the cr@pper and there's no economic plan except shovel more money from the pockets of people who actually work for a living and produce things into the pockets of billionaires?

In 4 years? If Romney, I'll blame Romney. If Obama, I'll blame Obama. There is no plan with Obama. He can't even get his Senate leader to introduce a budget. Here is an Obama plan: Stamp out coal and oil with no readily available and viable alternative. And LOST? Would you really vote for a POTUS that would sign this?:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/20/will-u-s-sovereignty-be-lost-at-sea-obama-signs-u-n-treaty-that-redistributes-drilling-revenues/

chris whats your email address? id like to discuss betting $1,000 that obama remains in the white house. not that i will be voting for him or romney because they are both for big government.
Romney= Obama

You're funny, Money. Are you a gut all government Libertarian?

nope- just know romenys not gonig to win... cant see an out of touch mormen getting majority of votes . a real conservative would never vote for romney.

"If Mitt Romney's an economic heavyweight, we're in trouble because he was 47th out of 50 in job creation in the state of Massachusetts." -Rick Santorum

They said the same thing about a black guy.

Money - Liberal Republicans are a funny breed, when you challenge them they call you a libertarian, even when you quote from our party's platform. Ironically, I seen Chris call himself a "conservative", just like Mitt, so you maybe on to something.....

Wow Tommy, you're calling ME a Liberal? That's funny. But, compared to your Libby views, I guess I do look liberal.

And Mitt's not a Conservative. Never was. He has some Conservative views, but that's about it.

Come on boys, Tommy P is a Classic Liberal and Chris is a Conservative Progressive. You two seem to argue so much about nothing I am being to wonder if your married.

Careful Chris. Next you'll be called a socialist. Or worse, an "independent." Remember, if you are not on anybody's team then everyone is against you.

The only thing worse then a man who thinks for himself is a woman who thinks for herself. :)

Chris: Your right about Mitt, he is no conservative. He could switch parties without coming up with a new position.

Jordan: Classic Liberal, by the Freedman defination, sure, I am guilty. I am not sure that I would call Chris a progressive, though.

Ridgewood Mom: I am sure you don't follow Fair Lawn stories much, I am a Republican, but not a partisan. I have actually had the president of the local Republican organization come after me on several posts. I stand by my principles. I believe in Liberty.

You need to be careful too, Tommy. We might agree about a thing or two. :)

Wikipedia: "The term was popularised in the United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the 19th-century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881): "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Other coiners have therefore been proposed."

I once voted for a yellow dog, and did we have trouble when he won!

Hold on, Garrett does not favor austerity. He favors responsible government.

Adam promotes increased tax rates at a level which will lower total tax receipts, stifle growth and make the budget deficit worse. He wants to triple taxes on investments while keeping corporate tax rates the highest in the world. NJ doesn't deserve a regressive congressman.

Of course Garrett is for austerity. If you are want prettier packaging then go ahead and call it "responsible austerity." You are also welcome to think that "austerity" is a means toward more "responsible government." But a rose by any other name is still a rose. You simply can not create your own rules concerning the meanings of vocabulary in the English language.

Concerning your points about what will stifle growth and make the budget deficit worse, you don't seem to understand the nature of the financial depression that we are in. Or worse. If the problem were one of constraints on capital or issues of business financing being unobtainable, then what you suggest might make some sense. But that is not what is stifling our economy right now.

The issue is a lack of sales as a result of people not buying things because they are experiencing decreases in income and unemployment. When most people aren't buying things that means that other people can't earn income by selling them things. And that is what Scott Garrett's austerity policies are making worse across both public and private sectors.

Moreover, taxation for very wealthy investors in just not an issue here. Investors are doing better then ever, evidenced by the increased market for very expensive luxury goods and the historically unprecedented divide income distribution between rich and poor.

Tommy P.:

Where are you getting you're information about Adam Gussen's positions. As far as I can see, it's simply based on the fact that he's running as a Democrat. I've been following this closely and Mr. Gussen has not taken any positions on taxes beyond those at a local Teaneck township level.

He certainly didn't provide any campaign material which discussed his views on taxes and none of his online material discussed positions on taxes.

If you have different information, could you provide your source. Please be specific.

@Ridgewood Mom - "progressives" fka liberals, socialists and often called statists attempt to redefine language all the time. Ending the spending that is causing the problem is not austerity, its responsibility. If the progressives have changed the meaning of responsibility, I missed the press release.

We are repeating the mistakes of that caused the FDR Depression. By removing downside risk for big corporations, they naturally take on more risk and compound the problem. We are worse off today then we were in 2008, the "too big to fails" are all bigger, the exceptions of bailouts in the face of failure persists. If we allowed the orderly liquidation of the malinvestment the way Coolidge did during the depression of 1920, we would have a much stronger economy today.

Investors are NOT doing better. Makers of luxury goods are not seeing growth, its quite the opposite. The wealthy understand what quantitative easing is, its printing money. They know their money is going to go down in value so they are converting it into things of value.

The rich are not getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. Its an expected outcome of printing money, the inflation of the money supply is a coercive measure that favors those who already have an earning capacity, disfavoring those on fixed income or with savings, thus aggravating inequality.

You may think its moral to punish success, but ultimately its nothing more then theft.

@Tom Abbott: My source is the horse's mouth. Adam has been parading around the district talking about it. I have heard it multiple times from him. He uses the example that Mitt Romney should have his income from Bain Capital taxed as ordinary income and not capital gains. His rational is he showed up to work at Staples just like other people, forgetting the fact he used money he was already taxed on to invest. Why should he pay himself with his own money?

He was also asked if he would lower the tax rates on corporations, highest in the world, on three occasions that I know of, he consistently answered NO.

When asked if we would support extending or making permanent the so-called Bush tax cuts that Obama signed an extension for, he also said NO.

When asked "What would you (he) change the tax rate on capital gains (currently 15%) to?", his answer was "I would increase it to 45%." 45% / 15% = 3.

Tommy P,

When you say that the rich are not getting richer are you being serious? If inequality is being "aggravated," doesn't that, in itself, mean that the rich are getting richer? Do we need to post some figures here?

Your shift to moral argument, again, causes me to question the sincerity of your statements about the economy. Those are two very different sorts of discussions. What is moral, in that regard, may be good or bad for the economy. What is immoral may be good or bad for the economy. Is it really just your idea about what is fair that motivates you to write on behalf of austerity, and Garrett who is so committed to austerity, and not reasoning over what will best work to improve the state of the economy?

@RM If "rich" is a comparative term you'd have a point. The reality is they are not gaining wealth, the poor are losing it due to the destructive policies of a private bank known as the "Federal" Reserve which are compounded by the laws and regulations pushed through by the current regime.

As for the morality argument, despite all the "good" Robin Hood does in fairy tales, he is a thief. Income taxes are taken from people under threat of force, don't take my word for it, just stop paying them. They justify that plunder by generalizing it and claiming its for the "greater good". The government then takes a portion, and gives it to some people. Its a shame you can't see that the government has created generations of people who are dependent on government. They hand out just enough to get by and just above an entry level wage. They prevent people from getting experience to get a better wage and prolong their poverty because if they do, they lose that freebie and wind up with less in the short term.

I know you may have a hard time with this, but greed is good. See its really nothing more than someone else's self interest. Its the foundation of capitalism which has brought improved living standard and wealth to the masses more than anything else in history.

When you get your coffee tomorrow morning at Starbucks, a funny thing will happen, you will give the Barista money, they will give you a coffee and you BOTH say thank you. Why? Your interest was served in that you had a coffee made for you and theirs was served by the monetary exchange.

I believe in people. I know that I am not unique in giving charity. I know there are people that need help. If breaking that vicious cycle is austerity in your book, I am for it. I believe in people. I believe in American's charitably. Don't you? History proves it.

Tommy P.:

Your comment, quoting Mr. Gussen with regard to capital gains taxes as stating, "I would increase it to 45%." lacks credibility. It leaves me little choice but to assume that I can take nothing you say as being factually accurate. I'll just have to wait and see Mr. Gussen has to say. Somehow, I doubt it will be what you have attributed to him..

Tommy, I'm not sure which discussion to continue with you.

First of all, the rich ARE getting a lot richer these days. You are being disingenuous.

Regarding morality, I think that you incorrectly conflate HUMAN nature with YOUR nature. Also, I am not the robin hoodite you are trying to paint me as. I am very critical of the government spending money badly.

With regards to the economy, I will repeat. There is not a financing issue going on. The country's depression is an issue of a lack of market of most Americans who are not rich.

When large percentages of Americans no longer have as much money, they don't go to Starbucks and give money to a barista in exchange for a cup of coffee because coffee is one of the first things they cut from their budget. So Starbucks stops selling and makes less money. Senior management, who are a minority in the company, then institute cuts in staff and benefits in order to retain their own spoils. Laid off employees then stop spending money because they don't have as much. Less money is spent on things like landscaping, home and auto repairs, thereby leaving masses of electricians, plumbers, mechanics, construction workers out of work and income. Then those people go home and feel jealous toward firemen and teachers and unionized public sector workers, who barely get more than them if at all, and get politicians to make cuts to public services. And an enormous percentage of the workforce are now out there not spending.

Ridgewood Mom, your post about what happens when there is no demand is the best post I've ever seen on this Patch site.

I'd go it a step further and say that "investors" aren't really "investing" in anything, they're just gambling. "Publicly" held companies are run for the sole purpose of getting through the quarter, making the analysts happy, and propping up the stock price. And when you figure in that executive compensation is heavily weighted towards stock, there's a built-in incentive to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to prop up the stock price, even if it is bad for the long-term health of the company, bad for the employees, and ultimately bad for the country. Profits aren't invested in the company, they're pocketed by executives and boards of directors. It's not "investing", it's "gambling."

The lack of demand is the symptom not the disease. The demand has fallen off because the government is borrowing too much and crowding out other borrowers. The demand has fallen off because people are being taxed too much, both directly and through inflation. We have seen this before in 1920, the 1930s, the late 70's and now. The thing that got us out of the last three was getting government out of the way.

B@B highlights an interesting problem with taxing production (income), people look for ways to avoid realizing it. If we ended the IRS and repealed the 16th Amendment in favor of a consumption tax, the double taxation on corporate profits would go away and dividends would become common place again. The "abuses" you are griping about are the "unintended" consequences of have the highest corporate tax rates in the world compounded by income/cgt taxes.

@Tom Abbott re: "Your comment, quoting Mr. Gussen with regard to capital gains taxes as stating, "I would increase it to 45%." lacks credibility. It leaves me little choice but to assume that I can take nothing you say as being factually accurate. I'll just have to wait and see Mr. Gussen has to say. Somehow, I doubt it will be what you have attributed to him.."

It suspect if he gains any traction the videos will become public. Ahead of that, I should be fair and add the rest of the context, Adam was referring to the capital gain rates made by hedge fund and other managers who actively participate in operating their investments. When questioned on the distinction, he stonewalled and took another question.

Tommy P:

Taking someone's statements out of context to distort his views is dishonest. Even with your correction which probably relates to the treatment of carried interest as capital gains, I somehow doubt he actually said "45%" as that is higher that the current tax rate.

Tom, your free to believe what you'd like. There was no dishonesty there, intended or otherwise. I know Mr Garrett has the video, its poor quality, I suspect if Adam get close in the polls it will come out, even if its just audio. I didn't take him out of context, except to the extent that all quotes are out of context if they are not fully complete. Obviously given the limitation of the comment fields on this website I could not recount verbatim every word said on 5 hours worth of videos.

When asked "What would you (he) change the tax rate on capital gains to?", his answer was "I would increase it to 45%." Maybe I should have added the question was asked immediately after he chastised Romney for "only" paying capital gains even though he went to "work" everyday "just like" the other employees. It doesn't change his position. He was cornered in what he thought was a friendly audience, he was given an opportunity to explain and chose to coward away. I'd love to hear more of his thoughts on the topic.

Thanks B@B. I'm glad to hear that someone is reading my posts, thinking about them and interested in responding to what I write in them, rather than just trying to overwhelm them for onlookers with a larger volume of words.

For the record B@B, I think investment can and should be an important part of a healthy economy. And if investor incentive had anything significant to do with what is going wrong with our economy, then I would be the first to get in there and argue in favor of finding ways to boost things in that arena. Just that lack of investor incentive is not the problem we are dealing with.

It should be obvious to anyone over the age of 10 where all the money has gone, because in about that amount of time a ten year old will have witnessed the wars, the ginormous financial industry money grab, the bailouts, etc.

Here is some common ground, we should end the wars, we should never have bailed out big business. Including the car manufacturers, did you know GM used the bailout money to move factories to China? Chrysler used the money to import Fiats.

I'll take trickle down prosperity over trickle up poverty any day.

You are shifting your arguments Tommy.

Is this a discussion about the moral perils of trying to "punish success" via "theft," or is it a utilitarian discussion about the acceptability of the inequality, no matter whether the means of determining the disparity if fair or not, leads to a greater degree of prosperity for the greatest number across the board?

And how does any of that work to argue HOW the economy can best be improved?

You understanding is shifting, not my position. We are all individuals. It should be obvious on its face. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. We do not all achieve equally, the idea that results should be equalized is nothing more than a race to the bottom. Its an affront to our spirit to advocate for equality of results. When you do that, you destroy self interest, the corner stone of freedom. Without an incentive to work hard, its the natural state of humanity to work as little as possible.

Life isn't fair, you could have been conceived in China where you would likely have been killed before you were born. And IF you were born, you wouldn't have half the quality of life you have in Ridgewood and wouldn't even be aloud to complain about it. You could have been born into the generational poverty exasperated by the War on the Poor (aka Poverty).

The free market has an amazing way of finding an equilibrium. People voluntarily agree to value, those who do it well prosper, those who don't, get by. Its in our nature to take care of members of our family and to be charitable, we don't need the middleman of government to do it for us.

There are only four ways money can be spent. When you spend your money on yourself, you care about quality and price. When you spend your money on someone else you care about price and to a lesser extent quality. When you spend other people money on yourself, you care about quality and not price. When you spend other people's money on other people, you don't care about either. Government does care about about quality or price and therein lies the flaw.

Allow self interests to voluntarily align incentives people to produce. Its no accident that the power plants, the light bulb, the radio, mass produced autos, smoke detectors, zippers, Velcro, bottle caps, the mouse trap, semi-automatic shotguns, fiber optics, batteries, disposable razors, hearing aides, air conditioning, air planes, tea bags, curtain rods, polygraph, programming languages, computers, etc,etc, all come from America. Have you ever stop to wonder why most technological innovate for past 200+ years comes from a country that represents less than 5% of the world's population? Think liberty has anything to do with it?

Except that taxation of wealthy individuals and corporations, and government spending on public services, had nothing at all to do with the depression we are in. It has all been about the absence of an invisible hand.

Your patriotism is also misaligned. The banking and financial systems that caused our current depression are multinational. And you are disregarding the interests of most Americans.

@Ridgewood Mom - When you destroy incentive, you get less. When government spends be it "public services", "entitlements" or social engineering, the wealth comes from somewhere. I am not sure that I would call this the Obama Depression just yet, but the bubbles that have made this down turn worse were initiated by poor government policies. The interference in the housing market in terms of regulations and the implicit guarantee. The expansion of the money supply and false carry trade between the Fed, other private banks and the Treasury. Sound money is in the interest of most Americans. Liberty is the interest of all Americans.

Art- Well said. Reagan wouldn't stand a chance today- he worked with Tip to push to adjust tax rates and after the first tax cuts, he tweaked the code and (gasp!), raised rates!!. Plus he pushed thru Social Security reform and (gasp!) raised rates. And, oh yeah, durinig is term, collections DOUBLED. And how did he do that? Working with the other side, just like Bubba in the late 90's, which gave us surpluses. While left and right wing idealogues howl about compromise, it has done us well.

Reagan did not raise income tax rates, he raised gas tax rates. He took income tax from 70% to 28%. The social security reforms didn't go far enough but they prolonged the viability of the system by decades.

The collections doubled because economic expansion took hold as the risk reward ratios improved. When you get to keep 70%, vs having it taken from you, your much more likely to take on the risk of start or expanding a business. That massive expansion was a direct result of the significant cuts. If we cut business taxes in half (currently we have the highest rate on the planet), the same thing would happen. Gussen wants to raise tax rates on business and investment.

As for Clinton, he was the second best (D) of the 20th century (JFK#1) in large part because of the contract with America and the Internet. Neither of those men were perfect, but compared to the peanut farmer or Barry Soetoro they are legends.

@Tommy P... Yes, you are correct regarding tax rates. I mis-spoke (or posted).. I meant that after (correctly) slashing rates when assuming office, the administration did not raise rates but tweaked the tax code to eliminate a number of deductions, a large number of which were shelters used by upper income earners. The result did not have a negative impact on te economy and tax collections did rise markedly over those 8 years. Business publications such as Forbes have viewed Reagan and Clinton as the most effective economic stewards post WW2. Their success lied in compromise and working with the other side of the aisle. Reagan said that if he saw 3/4 of a loaf he'd take it. Both Reaganus Maximus and Top Dog Clinton would be viewed by their respective parties as traitors today.

Oh please you were looking for any excuse to take a shot. I never questioned the state of Hawaii's assertion that he was born here. I didn't make up or give him that name. His mother did, its a historic fact.

my speel cheker must be malfunkioning

Romney invested in businesses that were performing poorly. He took his own money, and recapitalized those business. In order to ensure their success he managed those business. I agree with you the tax code has seriously flaws, I would scrap it for a consumption tax.

That said, lets use your example, you start your business with your own money. Those start up costs are become the value of the shares of your business. You use working capital to buy goods, you sell them, the profit's are taxed and do not include costs of goods sold. IF your business has value, when you sell it, you are taxed at 15% of what you sell it less your start up and on going reinvestment. You are not treated any differently then Romney.

But he didn't start a business. He bought and sold them as if they were a product.

Buying a business is investing in business. If we treat buying a business the way you suggest, it would reduce the value of every business. It would also make it more difficult to turn around a business. I am not sure the last time you were in a Staples, if he didn't risk his capital, it wouldnt exist today. Nor would Zoots which was started by the founders of staples. Both companies employee lots of people in multiple states. They generate lots of tax revenue not including the taxes paid by those employees. Adam's tax policy if implemented then would mean Staples and Zoots wouldn't exist today.

Makes one wonder why we need to encourage people like him if he will only invest his money if he will only pay less than 15% tax when there are so many people like me that start businesses and pay our full share.

Investment leads to wealth creation, society at large benefits from that. The investor gets their return, the employees earn income and consumers get products and services. It's a win-win-win situation. You pay less taxes when you start a business and your not comparing apples to apples.

American companies are keeping over $2 Trillion in profits oversees because of our tax policies. That's over $6,600 per person alive in America.

If you look at the operating model for private equity it is not always about acquiring weak companies it is also about acquiring "undervalued" companies, which are usall healthy. In those cases the operating model is to wring every last dime out value out of the firm, usually saddling it with debt, charging outrageous fees and usually cutting staff and pay levels alike.There's absolutely nothing illegal about these methods, but it shows the dearth of ethics and morals in today's financial service economy.

Come on Paul, don't you know that it is immoral to say that people shouldn't be immoral. You are so immoral to do that. That is what I am saying.

And it's a good thing that the government doesn't get involved in regulating any of this, because it is not the job of government to concern itself with what is moral. That would be immoral. What is moral is to let people be immoral because being immoral is a basic quality of human nature, and it would be immoral to tell them to be moral. It is morally essential that you allow this immorality because I am telling you that it is immoral.

Are you following? No? Its confusing for you? Good. Just know that I understand it better you do so you should heed my advice, or else the economy will become worse. And it will be immoral.

And I should get to have more money and not pay any taxes.

Lots of jibberish from someone who supports violence to achieve her social goals.

I wouldn't presume to say that it were immoral to say so Dr Paul. That would be immoral. That is what I am saying.

Would you like to use violence to lower taxes or to raise them? I shan't judge either way. Anyone who does so is infringing on liberty. Very immoral that.

Oh yeah, and I should get to have more money and not pay any taxes.

Ridgewood Mom, maybe a video will make it easier, http://youtu.be/pPlMhvCGxl4

Tommy, you are strengthening the case, again, that your economic prescriptions are driven by a personal moral ideology and not pragmatism regarding the situation itself. Preaching libertarian philosophy, as you have done here, has nothing to do with making sense of ECONOMICS. What you are doing is arguing in favor of what you perceive as your own interests regarding PERSONAL FINANCE.

Addressing your moralistic concerns, you seem to misunderstand the necessary component that RESPONSIBILITY plays in any claim of RIGHTS. Particularly in this case of the rights claim of LIBERTY. LIBERTY, in this case, makes demands of other people. In other words, it imposes RESPONSIBILITIES. You can not have LIBERTY without RESPONSIBILITY.

If you are prepared to claim, in the name of your own personal LIBERTY, that you are absolved of responsibility to others, then you must also be prepared to accept that others do not have responsibilities to you. That includes not having a responsibility to respect or adhere to your feelings of personal LIBERTY. Indeed, you are not advocating for LIBERTY but on behalf of MORAL NIHLISM. Nothing more and nothing less.

Its an interesting argument you make, its specious, but interesting nonetheless. The funny thing is those rights enumerated in our Constitution are inalienable, no mention of the word responsibility there at all.

Most of the discussion here has been about economics, I have been making the case that government spending come with some baggage. Its starts with coercion, under the threat of force which takes money from one person to give to another. It looks like that makes you uncomfortable, but it is what it is. Any time the government spends money, that fact should be taken into consideration. Good people don't like advocating violence, from what I read, your a good person.

Liberty makes demands of no one. The idea is simple, you choose if you volunteer to do something or not. You are free to do what you wish, up until the point you infringe on someone else's right to do the same. You owe me nothing, I should not be entitled to your property just because I "need" it.

I encourage you to watch the full video, then ask yourself, does he have a point. Even if you don't agree with all of the conclusions, isn't there a strong congruent logical case?

I did watch the video, and I think that my last past addressed its key flaws as they pertain to our discussion. All RIGHTS are contingent upon RESPONSIBILITIES. You can't absolve yourself of the notion of RESPONSIBILITY based on the idea that you have a RIGHT to be free from it. Such would undermine the notion that there are such things as RIGHTS, including LIBERTY. Your version of LIBERTY is no exception.

Moreover, you have been asserting that LIBERTY means you (and certain others) not having to pay taxes. You seem to be unaware of, or else exploiting, the social contractual nature of money.

There is no provision in the constitution that says you do not have to pay taxes. Indeed, the constitution asserts the role of the government in ensuring common welfare and refers to liberty in this shared universalistic context, as a broad notion for everyone. It does not assert liberty in the particularistic sense that you are advocating.

Regarding taxation as involving "coercive force" makes about as much sense (or not) as the arresting of persons for shoplifting as "coercive force." Taxation is enforced based on social contracts codified in law. Feel free to continue arguing that those laws should favor the increased accumulation of wealth for those already most well off, but reference to the enforcement of law as "coercive force" is hyperbole. Tax evasion, like any other serious criminal behavior, should not be something one would expect to be met with a smile.

I know I didn't sign that social contract, can I get a copy please? I don't object to taxes, I object to how much of it is spent.

The general welfare clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax. It is not a catch all to allow the government to do anything, spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military.

Arresting someone for a crime is clearly not the same. The person being arrested interfered with the liberty of the victim(s). Clearly governments have to generate tax revenue to survive, the question of how and how much are what is up for debate.

Income taxes are the most regressive form of tax since they punish production. We should focus on user taxes (ie sales taxes) instead. Before Social Security INSURANCE old people were not dying because of poverty. When the program started, you had to live longer than life expectancy, now your expected to collect for at least 1/6 of your life or more. People are lead to believe their is a lock box, but that money is spent. People have been conditioned to depend on it, plan on it being there, but the numbers just don't add up and demographics are making it worse.

If we enacted Adam's tax plan, we would export more business, reduce the tax base and spend more. That hasn't worked out too well in Europe.

@Tommy P.... In regard to your comment about Social Security, there were things such as "Poor Farms" and the like during this period as well as families on the brink due to the depression ... Social Security was at first a stipend and based on actuarial tables of the 1930's, did its job well. The morphing of it into an expansive entitlement and not adjusting rules based on life longevity was not envisioned by the initial advocates of the program. Raising the retirement age and likely means testing have to be on the table soon. Boomers will whine and Gen X'ers and Gen Y'ers will be paying the freight. I dont think anyone can disagree that the Social Security program is reaching its "High Noon" moment.

Tommy, you don't seem to understand the meaning of social contract theory. Read your John Locke! In arguing on behalf of "liberty" you, yourself, have been advocating a social contract. Moreover, libertarianism is premised on social contract theory. Locke was the one first credited in surmising that in a natural state all people were equal and independent, and that everyone had a natural right to defend their “Life, health, Liberty, or Possessions." In the American Declaration of Independence that's "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I never said that the general welfare clause was a specific grant of power for the purpose of qualifying tax. Read what I wrote again, please.

Income taxes certainly do carry the potential of stifling investment. I have never said otherwise. What I have said is that that doesn't apply to the current challenges facing the economy. Indeed, reckless money lending, over-incentives and incentives to invest in ways that have been hurtful to the economy constitute the largest factor that has caused our current depression. That and the cost of two wars. The sorts of entitlement spending programs that you refer to have had essentially no impact. Now, if the situation were something different I would be the first to get on board in looking to find ways to encourage and stimulate big investment.

Just to be clear, what are you getting at in stating that "demographics are making it worse?"

I must have failed progressive math. According to the CBO, In 2011, Social Security "Insurance", Medicare and Medicaid made up 43% of federal spending. The Dept of Defense was 19%. Pesky facts.

I am with you that I'd like to see the wars ended, but they are not the biggest problem.

Our economy is loaded up with bubbles due to malinvestment which has yet to be liquidated. Not sure depression is the right word, but we are headed in that direction. If the government didn't interfere in housing, the bubble could never have become so large. If the government didn't allow investment banking (risk) and traditional banking (savings) to become blurred while retaining an implicit guarantee, the 08 crisis would not have been a crisis. We bailed out to big to fail, and got bigger still, leveraging up again, knowing we the tax payer will assume the downside when it comes.

Even if the percentages approached 100%, these sorts of services are non-issues with regards to our current depression (or whatever you want to call it). Without recent financial crises (combined with the cost of the wars), the economy would be sailing on a smooth balanced budget.

Again, what were you getting at in stating that "demographics are making it worse?"

Some more progressive math, $3,598B - $2,303B is $1295 B, the DoD spend $700B. So even if we spend nothing on defense and the wars, is your position begin short almost $600B is a good thing?

The truth is the financial crisis was not caused by Wall St, but by Washington. Wall St didn't create the subprime mess, it just leveraged it up. Without the implicit guarantees of Fannie and Freddie Mac, coupled with regulations which forced banks to take on high risk loans with no downside risk, the result was obvious to many and clear to most in hindsight.

The demographic shifts that are occurring with the murder of 50 million unborn Americans, longer lives for the rest of us and the baby boom, coupled with the static age brackets for social security "Insurance" are causing it to be a net loser.

Pennies with regards lost revenue from tax cuts, and then more lost revenue from higher unemployment. Its just not significant, in and of itself.

It very well may be significant to you, because you have expressed moral issue regarding the fairness of taxes. But again, you are co-mingling the idea that you don't like taxes with the idea that the government is spending too much. And it is rather clear at this point that you are doing this with the deliberate intention to mislead.

Tommy, you can claim that the financial crisis wasn't caused by Wall St., but by DC all you want. It won't make it more true.

Of course, you're correct in that DC removed some key provisions, like Glass-Steagal which allowed for the co-mingling of funds and the like, but if you think that they would have done such a thing without the prodding (and dollars) of Wall St. pouring in, you're insane.

It should also be known that the law was repealed under President Clinton (a Democrat) and that President Obama has hired most of the same people that got us INTO this mess. That's because screwing over the average American is a bi-partisan effort. Anyone that tells you otherwise is lying to you.

As for this non-sense about banks being FORCED to make bad loans - complete phooey. They were FORCED to make equal loans to poor neighborhoods as well as affluent ones so as not to cause an even more lopsided landscape when it came to opportunity.

Since there are obviously better bets to be made when giving loans to richer people (when it comes to default rates), they had 2 options: 1) make more loans to people that can't pay them back in order to make the additional loans to the rich or 2) stop writing so many damn loans. No one put a gun to them and said they had to make any sub-prime loan.

Now, I do agree with you on the issue of Social Security (to a point). The point of the system in its origination was to ensure that our parents and grandparents didn't live destitute lives at their very end.

It was meant to cover people for a very short period of time and was set to start at a mere few months before the average life expectancy of the time. A lot of people never lived long enough to see social security, let alone be helped by it.

After several generations, the age of benefits hasn't changed much, while people are retiring earlier and living longer than ever. That's a very different situation than what was intended.

Then again, the baby-boomers are going to come and go and the next generation is significantly smaller, so the total trust fund isn't in as bad of a shape as many are led to believe. Follow Charles Blauhau (the trustee on social security) on FB and Twitter - it's an eye opener. The real problem will be medicaid and medicare.

The idea of for-profit insurance for medical care is one of the worst possible solutions. A hundred years from now, people will look back on it and wonder what they were possibly thinking.

As for your whole abortion comment - how can you possibly stand for States' rights while simultaneously saying that the Fed Gov't should be able to outlaw something like abortion?

@Ridgewood mom: Tax cuts DON'T cost money. Its not lost revenue, money belongs to those who make it, not the government. I don't like taxes, I don't think many people do, the Treasury Dept accepts donations, I assure you the number is very small. Government spending is taxation. Your misunderstanding of basic economic principles is misleading on my part.

Keith, you are right both parties have been screwing us.

The bad loans are obvious on their face, banks were threatened to make loans that did not include risk in their pricing. Its bad business, no one would invest in them without the partial (80%) government guarantee and requirement in regulation/law. Banks are in business to make money, they can invest assets or lend money against them. What you are suggesting is they simply close down.

When you look at the cost of medical procedures where insurance is not involved, the quality has gone up and the price has gone down. Look at Lazik and cosmetic surgery as example. When medical providers are not billing their patients and someone else is paying, patients don't care how much it costs. Interestingly enough, the profit margin of major insurers is less than the fraud known to exist in government programs. Also keep in mind not every insurer is for profit. Not every medical center is either.

As for Abortion, the states regulate crimes, murder is usually handled by states. There is no difference biologically between a baby two minutes after it born vs two minutes before. Is it murder if someone drowns a baby two minutes after they are born? At what point does a fetus become a person, its hard to argue that it happens at birth. Amillia Sonja Taylor was born in the 4th month of her mom's pregnancy, is that the point? Until science can answer when it happens, shouldn't we give life the benefit of the doubt?

So if the States say that abortion is legal, that should be the end of it for you, right? NJ, no matter what the Supreme Court or Congress says, will always say that abortion is legal - so you may as well move on to another topic.

As for "when life begins", I believe my religion gives me that answer and my religion calls for performing an abortion if the mother's life is potentially in danger. Therefor any law outawing abortion is going against my religious beliefs. First amendment trumps your measly laws.

As for the cost of medical procedures - I don't disagree that telling people that a $20 copay entitles them to unlimited tests and procedures leads to many unnecessary procedures and operations.

Nor do I disagree that costs rise more when people don't have a more tangible relationship to what those costs are.

But neither of those is my point. I'm not against medical insurance - just "for-profit" medical insurance. The point of insurance is to distribute risk. Removing money from the pool means less to pay for necessary operations and procedures (however we define them).

What we should have is a national system (like medicare, that has far less waste than ANY private system) and not-for-profit competitors to keep costs down (like Blue Cross, etc...).

As far as the banks - give me a break. No one, no law, no regulation forced ANY BANK to make a bad loan. The banks decided that bad loans were prefereable to reducing the amount of loans overall. That's a business decision.

No one is saying that they had to go out of business, but i AM saying that they shouldn't have created business where none deserved to be. If I didn't have collateral or the ability to pay, a bank should not have made me a customer. If that means they go out of business, so be it.

Tommy,

Of course tax cuts cost money. You play with words again. If less money is being paid to the government in taxes then there is less money for the government to spend. That is "basic math." Not "progressive math." To state that such money "belongs to those who make it" is, again, a moral prescription and not a statement about economics.

I'll add that your statements that I am not "understanding of basic economic principles" and am using "progressive math" are entirely ad hominem. This comes across as intellectual insecurity on your part. Moreover, you don't even seem to be attempting to reveal the correctness of your contrary views via explanation, but just preaching that what you say is so and then saying that others should believe you as an appeal to authority.

To be clear, I by no means identify as a "progressive." Not that such a term should work as an epithet any more so than should such terms as "democrat," "republican," "libertarian," "liberal" or "conservative." I am independent and I find there to be a great deal of sensible thought brought into the public sphere by both Republicans and Democrats. I would say that my views are quite moderate. Neither Republican nor Democratic views can be said to square with you and Scott Garrett's confused notion of "liberty." Indeed, traditional Republican values tend to stress in importance of family and community and moral obligation. It seems to me that you and Garrett are just lost inside yourselves.

@Keith, if my religion states its okay to end the life of people that I disagree would it be okay for me to act on that? The first amendment does not guarantee your ability to anything you want in the name of religion.

As for health issues, profit has extended and improved quality of life. Without an incentive why would any drug company risk millions to find medicines? Without a profit incentive why would anyone go through all the training to become a doctor? Without profit why risk opening a clinic or medical center? Have you been to DMV?

As for medicare having far less waste then any private system, your completely wrong. Medicare and Medicaid are known for the waste. Remember government workers are incentivised to spend every penny of their budget so they get it and more next year. Private sector workers are incentivised to be efficient. Is either system perfect, no. Take a look at medical fraud cases, how many are government vs how many are private sector. It looks like you'll be surprised to find out the government is usually the one defrauded.

So Ridgewood Mom, when we make money, its the government's and they allow us to keep a percentage? Is that what you are saying? Morality issues aside, the person who create wealth, has it. The government does not create wealth, it takes it.

A tax cut does not always result in less revenue to the government, the historical record suggests otherwise in a big way. Even if a tax cut nets less revenue, it doesn't cost the government anything, its not their money to begin with.

Adam Gussen calls himself a progressive. I have heard it in his own voice.

I am a Republican, not ashamed of it either. I have voted for Democrats and others in the past, and may even do so again. Party labels are sometimes misleading, but tend to hold true. A few weeks ago I praised Kurt Peluso (D) for his statements on some budget items in Fair Lawn. The two party system is sham, the ballot access laws in the states basically mandate a duopoly, both parties have disagreements in their ranks. Neither party is going to change that.

Garrett fits right in with Republicans, somewhere between the conservatives and libertarians among us. He is not confused, you just don't agree because you have a different view. It seems to me that you see socialism as a form of liberty, many of us disagree. You talk about "family and community and moral obligation", its nice to see you realize that we don't see government as part of that equation.

Wow, way to twist, obfuscate and outright lie.

Abortion: Don't be absurd. The first amendment doesn't override all laws and I never stated such. However, laws cannot override the religious freedoms of people merely because you "think" life begins earlier.

Healthcare: That's a blatant lie. Profit has not extended or improved quality of life. In fact, all stats show that socialized medicine in Europe has extended their lives past our life expectancy and yielded better infant mortality stats as well. You are not entitled to make up your own facts (Wikipedia puts us behind 37 other Countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy).
or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/europe-life-expectancy-_n_837601.html

And you are conflating what I said about a profit motive (shocker). I'm not saying Doctors can't make money. I'm not saying those developing technology can't make money - I'm saying that INSURANCE COMPANIES SHOULDN'T MAKE ANY MONEY!

Last time I checked, an insurance company never treated a person for a medical ailment. Last time I checked, an insurance company never created a medical procedure or a new form of technology. They take money away from doctors and they take money away from care providers. There's simply no reason for it.

You can claim that medicare is wasteful, but you are wrong. Private medical practices spend upwards of 30% on billing alone. That is a fraction of medicares budget. (continued)

In fact, private medical insurance companies tried to compete with medicare. It was a doomed project called Medicare advantage (that we are still funding for reasons passing understanding).

The original plan was for private insurance companies to fund medicare procedures for lower costs and they got to keep to extra to show the medicare system could be improved.

They showed back up to Congress to demand more money because they couldn't compete. They couldn't get anywhere close to the level of medicare.

In fact, it works so well - that every member of Congress uses it without any complaints and any attempt to switch elderly people to it is met with tremendous fights from AARP.

If it's so bad, why does EVERYONE (republicans and democrats alike) fight to keep it?

Tommy, you confuse wealth with capital.

Sure you are a Republican, as Garrett is. The two of you identify as such, so who would be justified in saying otherwise. But your views, as you express them, are very different from traditional Republican views and I think that is an important point with regards to this article. As you acknowledged earlier, you are not somewhere in the Republican middle. Your views are radical libertarian. Quite liberal in terms of social values. Individualistic and not at all interested in the traditional family, community and otherwise moral values that most Republicans hold as central values. And this radical libertarian position, shared by Scott Garrett and his tea party radicals, has less in common with mainstream Republicanism then does the mainstream segment of the Democratic party.

I think that our discussion is very much about Garrett. People are arguing for and against Garrett's positions. If you have any doubt that Garrett's views are every bit as ideologically fundamentalistic as those expressed in this thread, then look at his voting record and listen to him speak.

Ha. This is not even close to the record. Keep going though: Dreams can come true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2q1qXJDl4Q

Garrett was the only member of the NJ Delegation who voted against the bill that would have provided up to $7.4 billion in aid to people sickened by World Trade Center dust including free health care and compensation payments to 9/11 rescue and recovery workers who fell ill after working in the trade center ruins.
http://www.politickernj.com/garrett-911-first-responders-you-re-your-own-healthcare
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll491.xml

Yes, Yes and a resounding NO. This guy Garrett is a horror show. And it looks like Bergen county will not have a resident representing them. We only bankroll the rest of the state and pour funds into Washington so the cash can be diverted to red states. It's ironic that an anti-redistributionist like farmer Scott,who scams the system allows does nothing to halt the gobs of subsidies that go to the midwest and south.

The NJ farm laws would not be covered in the congress, I personally think they should be repealed.

I walked out of the South Tower, I am victim of that crime. I assuming your talking about the extended benefits for the first responders, I would have voted against the feds pay for that too. I feel for the victims, but the government should not be making victims of crime nor war whole. Its just not practical. I understand the emotional issue, but these individuals have claims against the property owners. There was also Billions in aid raised. If there were a real need, the private sector would have done a great job in raising the monies needed.

Tommy, this is a Country that was founded on freedom and shared sacrifice.

Since your opinion is shared by Scott Garrett - I would never want either of you looking after my best interests or the interests of my family. To tell the citizens that STEP UP that they don't deserve their health to be looked after is a slap in the face to the values that this Country has always cherished.

p.s. I got out of the subway at WTC between the two planes. I am also a "victim" of that crime. I felt like was coughing up an ashtray for weeks - and I simply cannot fathom the disconnected mentality that you have.

Keith your understand of American history is a bit off. It maybe true to some extent since Wilson, but it is clearly not that of our founding. Our founders were British subjects who fought their own government.

"For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" was intended not as a foundation of the new government, but the resolve to establish it. It was about securing the rights of man (not men).

The government is not the only entity with the capacity to help those injured, but it is working hard to crowd the rest out. Americans are the most generous group of people on the planet by far, the more we have, the more charitable we are. The more government takes, the more it makes it appear they are taking care of the problem, the less we give. Think about how money is spent, you can spend it on yourself, you are care about quality and cost, you can spend it on someone else you care about cost and quality is secondary. You can spend someone else's money on yourself you care about quality, but not as much on cost. Or you can spend some else's money and yet another, at which point you don't care about quality or cost. Government is about spending someone else's money on someone else, hence the high price and low quality.

You should never expect someone to put their your interests in front of their own. While you should be grateful when it happens, it shouldn't be expected. Its not practical. I know you care a lot more about your self interest and your family than any government ever could.

I believe in you, don't you?

I also was there on that fateful day and the air that permeated the area immediately after will have a long term effect on many more people, not just first responders. It's not making people whole but helping people, who through no fault of their own, are victims. And for those not having medical coverage, even worse. What do you propose, letting these victims whither and die, telling them "sorry, Scott needs to send money to Iowa instead"? Maybe farmer Scott can stop the subsidies going to his red state concubines and redirect some funds here for funding first responders illnesses. Grover should just have to make due with lower ethanol subsidies.

I have a better idea, let's keep more of our money. Let's reduce the budget of government and let the people do with fruits of their labor what they see fit. Some people call that freedom or liberty. This idea that we need to keep feeding the monstrous government in DC is not the only way things can get done.

I know my life is likely going to be shortened because of those events, That doesn't mean I should have the government take money from those people in Iowa to give to me.

No one is suggesting we just let those people wither and die, I just challenge the notion that the goverment is the only group that help. I know better.

Tommy P- The people from Iowa take money from the feds very happily while Grover spouts his drivel - NJ gets 61 cents for every buck to DC- Iowa gets about 1.20 or so. Red state bastions like Kentucky, Mississippi, 'Bama, Kansas, North Dakota etc. feast like pigs at the federal trough...and they're all red states I believe.

We the people...

I could understand that from a stranger, but I would expect a little more in terms of, well, character from those elected to represent us. I'm just baffled as to how Scott Garrett would let those that ran into the flames - to save Americans - , not get the health care that they need for cancers and other results from the debris.

Allan politics is not as easy as us vs them. I don't always agree with each of those mention, they don't always agree among that small group. There are more than two sides to a coin, heads, tails and the edge(s).

From one pastafarian to another... I don't think Romney fits that profile. He governed as a centrist in Massachusetts and was very successful. He had to do a lot of pandering to get the Republican ring. He's actually one of the few astute businessmen to govern well. In the Executive office of the U.S., the last 3 successful businessmen had pretty poor performances... Hoover, Carter (who was a very successful farmer) and W (even though that was more nepotism than anything else)

On October 17, 2003 Scott Garrett voted NO on Roll Call 554 (H.R. 3289), a motion that would have provided U.S. service personnel with a pay raise.

On October 16, 2003 Scott Garrett voted NO on Roll Call 547 (H.R. 3289), a motion that would have provided funding for quality of life enhancements for U.S. troops.

On June 26, 2003 Scott Garrett voted YES on Roll Call 324 (H.R. 2559), a motion that prevented certain funding to build and/or renovate living and work spaces of military families.

I'm new to the 5th District, but how does this guy keep getting elected while siphoning funds away from farmers and hurting our fighting men and women?

@Ridgewood Mom, its nice to see you had to travel back 9 years to find something objectionable. Garrett voted against these three not because of titles but content. All congressman should vote that way. Its a shame that people takes swipes at the other side for voting against bills with junk attachments.

Jack, scroll up. There were TEN items that I listed and most of them weren't from none years ago. There is a solid pattern across the years of Garrett voting to deny uniformed military personal and veterans just about any sort of provisions or improvements requested for them at the congressional floor.

I am Scott Garrett...and I support Garrett for re-election...I actually ONLY support Scott Garrett for ANYTHING, because he is me, and I couldn't care less about Bergen County or most of the rest of the people that live there...you see, greed is good...for me anyway...which is all that matters...and that's good for the economy...me being greedy for me...and liberty...and you shouldn't take people's stuff by coercive force...

...oh yeah, and I'm a winner and we all want to identify with a winner...

Art, Garrett has been re-elected for a decade by people in Bergen County who have never done their civic duty by knowing who they're voting for. They bought the "I'm just like Marge" line in 2002 and have never looked back. People look at their property taxes and wonder why their relatives in the south pay $2000/year and they're paying 14,000/year. Well, Garrett is part of the reason for that. Garrett represents only his Grover Norquist ideology of "I Got Mine And Eff You", not the people of his district. So why do they keep sending him back to Washington? And if they did their homework, would they continue to do so?

"Frankly, you sound stupid."

What a gentleman.

Frankly David, you are an idiot. NJ would be able to lower taxes if we got our fair share from Federal Govt. Farmer Scott ensures his buttboy Grover gets tons of money from the feds. We get about 61 cents back for every buck to DC. Yur red state heroes like McConnell and Norquist are milkinhg the country dry.

Uh, yeah, I DO like that line, because it very succinctly encapsulates what the Republican philosophy is. People like you live in a world where guys like Mitt Romney, who was born into a wealthy, well-connected family "earned" his quarter-of-a-billion, where the guy who worked hard every day at one of the companies he helped destroy is somehow not deserving of a piece of the American Dream.

Garrett DOES have a hand in state and local taxes, because he places his ideology above EVERYTHING, including and especially the needs of his district. There's a reason a Congressperson is called a "representative" -- because s/he is supposed to represent YOU, not Grover Norquist or Miss McConnell or any of the other parrots of the right. Every other Congressperson in the country, even the most avid right-winger in the House, brings home the bacon to his/her district -- except Scott Garrett and those like him in our state's Congressional delegation. When federal money doesn't come home, states have to make up the difference.

I consider myself part of the 99% even though I have a six-figure income. Why? Because I'm not a quarter-billionaire like Willard Rmoney (misspelling deliberate), and because I have a heart in the place where YOU have a dark hole that nothing can fill.

Now please explain to me how Garrett is a big improvement over Marge Roukema. I'm all ears. Do you even KNOW?