What a sophmoric comment. He is asking WHY the money is going to states NOT EVEN HIT BY THE STORM, and you criticize him. Grow up.

what a sophmoric statement. The Ridgewood Mayor should be thanking Mr. Garrett for having the stones to ask the question WHY there is money in this bill going to people who have NO CONNECTION to Sandy. Pretty simple. Send money to people who it was intended for.

Obama = Joesef Stalin

Hate to say it but the Sussex farmer(?) did have a point but as always, he is totally tonedeaf to his constituents, except for the Bergen County miscreants that voted for him (he had Sussex wrapped up). He did vote to declare a state of emergency, gotta give him credit there. In terms of the appropriations, when you look at the pork for Salmon fisheries, etc., okay, he had a point. The GOP 23 bil was for immediate relief and longer term measures would go thru a voting process. okay, cant argue too much with that. But, our elected representatives in DC need to ensure that the next steps (long term remediation) gets the funding it needs. If only our idiot reps in the capitol can get us more than 60 cents onthe buck we should get what we need. Let's see what garrett's brethren who are no more than red state welfare queens and general parasites do in terms of voting for the right appropriations.

Here's the NY Post article AMAMOM is referring to:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/little_help_here_1kW6aQ8fElj4CKwbheEV0N

Why let the FACTS get in the way. WE NEED THE MONEY, not people who were not hit by the storm. How simple is this? The other side is of this argument is WHY are they letting this bill be introduced with the BS in it? Thank you Scott Garrett. Get a clue Mr. Aransohn.

I wrote that just to give people some reference. I fleshed out the copy to include some of the proposed pork projects and a bit more on the damage to NJ.

Thank God. Finally someone who understands what it really happening here. Thank you amamom for some sanity.

That has been the problem for the past 4 years. JUST DO IT- Really? Do what? Spend more money we don't have, and give it to people who have NOTHING TO DO with Sandy. Are you really listening to yourself? Take a step back and really ask if Garrett is doing the right thing and asking the question WHY? That is his JOB for crying out loud.

WOW- Really the NRA in this discussion? How about staying on topic and thanking him for asking the question of WHY there is money in a bill for Sandy relief for states that had NO DAMAGE during the storm. Take the emotion out of it, and really ask yourself that question before we allocate OUR MONEY to people who have no deed for it. REALLY? What is the issue here.

Rene,

Garrett is an NRA darling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33l1mT_lI8Q
http://www.ontheissues.org/NJ/Scott_Garrett_Gun_Control.htm

That is EXACTLY why they are pushing this through. They know we are hurting, and know they can get this done with out any questions asked. Just like the HealthCare bill that Nancy Pelosi didn't read, but told her sheep to vote for. How is that going to work out for us over the next 10 years.

Brian- Great question. I guess it is cool to say you voted for Obama, but when it comes to your common sense about what you want done locally, you vote for Garrett. . Crazy situation.

Judging by the actual numbers, it appears that Garrett's victory in Ridgewood is better explained by fewer people participating in the house vote then in the vote for president.

http://www.ridgewoodnj.net/main_recent.cfm?ArticleID=1086

10,839 voters participated in the presidential election, with Obama leading by 205 votes.

10,182 voters participated in the senate election, with Menendez leading by 561 votes.

9860 voters participated in the senate election, with Garrett leading by 692 votes.

If the 979 voters who participated in the presidential election were to have also participated in the house election, it could certainly have gone the other way.

Great point Ridgewood mom. That is the difference almost exact.

Rene, Garrett just voted against his constituents' interest for a broader political point. (and that is not necessarily good or bad but his vote certainly was not in his voters' interest as more money would come into his district than would go out to pay for this plan)

You must be doing very well if you think 200 MILLION is not worth fighting for. It is OUR 200 million. It is EXACTLY that kind for thinking that has us in the fix we are in. Why worry about the details, just keep spending money we don't have. WOW.

How is he an embarrasment? He is looking out for OUR MONEY. How about putting the blame on the legislators that have the NERVE to attach money to this bill that has NOTHING to do with Sandy. I don't get it, the world is going to hell in a handbasket if you can't see through this one. PLEASE wake up.

Actually this will mean less money for "us."

This is the very sort of "no compromise" thinking that is destroying American political discourse.

Compromise??? You mean giving states that weren't hit by Sandy a "relief" package?

RidgewoodResident,

Your view of "compromise" expresses my point exactly.

When only one side keeps compromising and the other doesn't, only the stubborn side gets what they want. Hooray, what a great strategy! But when the other side figures out how that is working, then neither side will end up compromising and no one will get anything.

In this case, that means no Sandy relief for New Jersey. And if you, like Scott Garrett, really feel that making a point of spite is more important then working together with others to get assistance for those who need it then I feel sorry for you. But I feel a lot more sorry for those who will not get what they need and deserve.

Does anyone wonder why its gets this bad.... do you really think name-calling and more castigating comments adds to the value of the debate?

Angie has a good point... why are we asking for $60 billion, for $40 billion in damage? Also is the Democrat Mayor going to write a nasty op-ed when Harry Reid's democrat controlled Senate does its damage to the bill? Aronsohn's rant against Garrett was completely a bitter partisan attack.

When you name-call, AND do so behind some obscure anonymous screen name, lacks ANY credibility. For all anyone knows, you could be the Mayor's wife. Let's get back to civil and HONEST debate.

Where did I name call, Glenn?

The House is a 2 year term. The Senate is 6. Not sure who you mean we have 4 more years of.

Again, to my point above, people did not vote party lines. That is what is so interesting. I think you would have to conclude from the numbers that Garrett's challenger just didnt get his name out there enough. Menendez and Obama won Ridgewood but Garrett also did.

Jim,- I don't understand your statement. Why would you not question a bill that has 200 MILLION dollars that has NOTHING TO DO with the storm. If you can explain to me how that is OK, I would be very impressed. Instead of blaming the politicians that jumped on board and are taking advantage for a terrible situation, you blame the one person who is simply asking WHY. Look forward to your response.

There are three conversations here. One is about Ridgewood and the other are about Bergen county and the 5th congressional district.

Bergen county has 170,109 registered democrats and 111,696 registered republicans. http://www.njelections.org/2012-results/2012-1025-statewide-voter-regs-summary-county.pdf

But NJ's 5th congressional district is not only Bergen county nor all of Bergen county. It includes parts of Bergen, Passaic, Sussex and Warren counties. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/NJ05congressdistrict.gif

Across the 5th congressional district there are 119,242 registered democrats and 131,509 republicans. There are also 230,206 registered voters who are not affiliated with a political party. So unaffiliated voters can do a lot to effect the election outcome.

As I hypothesized is the case here for Ridgewood, voter apathy can also make a significant impact. But even if Garrett had lost in Ridgewood, he may have won in the 5th district. Its tough to say.

In 2008, Ridgewood had 4734 registered democrats, 4057 registered republlicans and 6447 registered voters who were not affiliated with any political party.
http://dng.northjersey.com/media_server/tr/smaps/2008/electionresults2008/att/North_Jersey_election_results_74.html

As Brian and I said above, Garrett has voted against the interests of his constituents because he has voted against there being a greater sum coming in then going out. Now if you feel that he made the right choice then you are not standing up for your interests, nor those of your neighbors. Rather, you are standing on principle as Scott Garrett has done.

With regards to the question of right and wrong, I think that Scott Garrett's anti-government ideology is amongst the nuttiest to be found out there with regards to extremist "free market" fundamentalism. But that is another question.

My point about what is problematic about Garrett's "no compromise" thinking has to do with there being a necessity for politicians who see things very differently from one another to find a middle ground, which often means giving up something or going along with something that you might not agree with in order to get something that you need. This is another case of the sort of obstructionism that will get nothing accomplished for anyone. In the name of not selling out on his principles, Garrett has sold out his constituency.

WRONG!
Senators: 6yrs.
Reps: 2 yrs

Not too smart are we.

Wow Dan. I see you have been reading the DNC talking points Garrett was in office before the Tea Party came around, and I can make the leap you supported those idiots who Occupied Wallstreet. Not a Tea Party guy, but at least they do things without breaking the laws. Muskets, really. The Constitiution is a living document, give us a break. Merry Christmas to you and your family.

Fortunately, you're wrong, and McDonald vs. Chicago guarantees me a right as an American to own a handgun for self-defense.

Do you really know what "Jef and George" would think? Do you think they would approve of the current tax rates? The wasteful spending? The $16 trillion in debt? The dependent society? Your argument is specious at best.

"Only $200 million of bad stuff"??? And you're impressed. How about ZERO wasteful spending. Only $200 million?

As for "trying to drag this country back into the 18th century" ... its divisive and unproductive comments. Should I assume you rather stick with the politicians that are dragging this country into a bankrupt socialist republic, with an ever growing dependent class?

We have enough partisan, divisive rhetoric; isn't it time that we bring RESPECT and SOLUTIONS back into the debates?

Mr. Johnson,

Firstly, get out a calculator and do some reading (http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/brief-analysis-of-selected-provisions-in-proposed-senate-supplemental-appro). You will find that you exceed the "$200 million of bad stuff" by FOUR TIMES is p. 18 alone.

Second, Garrett was a fiscal watchdog before the Tea Party even existed. If you remember, he was excoriated by his party's president and fellow members during their spending binge in the mid 2000's.

Third, you need not bring the 2nd Amendment into this discussion.

This bill for Sandy could have targeted areas that really need it. Democrats and Republicans jumped on the opportunity to obfuscate their pet projects into a disaster relief bill and is shameful. In my humble opinion, Garrett and other fiscal hawks are not looking to drag us back into the 18th century, as you state - they are trying to insure that we don't spend ourselves into extinction in the 21st.

Right RidgewoodResident, and it thus subsequently guarantees your son a right to access your legal gun to shoot up twenty kids in a school somewhere. Something needs to be done about that.

Michael,

It would have targeted the areas that really needed it if Garrett & co. hadn't axed it. That is the point.

However any of us feel about ear marking in Washington, it can not make any sense to blame this longstanding practice, which is bipartisan and ubiquitous to legislation, as the raison d'etre for New Jersey not getting the aid that it needs. Scott Garrett's choosing of this moment to make a statement about the practice of ear marking, in general, is horrible timing. Worse, it can not succeed in effecting future earmarks and can only result, here, in funding not coming in for those who need it. it is the most reprehensible sort of grand standing.

Willard,

Insulting is the revisionist history that has been going on for the past few years and how the D's get away with always thinking they are the high and mighty moral ground of the country. Give me a break. Now you are spewing your talking points about wars that EVEERYONE in the Congress approved, but only Bush gets blamed for. We have not even SEEN A BUDGET in Four years from this administration, and our debt is out of sight. Keep your insults to yourself Willard. Merry Christmas.

My Dear Rene,

Some more "revisions":

1. Everyone didn't vote to go to war in Iraq...and that is a fact.
2. Did Mr. Garrett ever vote for a defense appropriation bill that included earmarks of any kind? He did...and that is a fact.
3. Your argument doesn't hold up...and yes, that is a fact.
4. People, towns, and business in our state need help from the devastation of Sandy, not the stalling rhetoric of a bunch of hypocrites...and that is a fact.
5. Oh, a couple of other facts...the earth is more than 10,000 years old, there is such a thing as global warming, and Big Bird is still on the air.
6. I am a registered Republican.

Ah, now I am just screwing with you....Merry Christmas.

Willard.... site your sources of all your facts please.

Nicely stated Angie.... but "its going to leave us broke"... we are broke, and not just financially.

Yes.... the politics of vindictiveness...yes, make him pay. Aronsohn is grandstanding, still licking his wounds from his previous run against Garrett. He has no business complaining about Garrett's vote on the issue; its pure politics. Maybe the Mayor's from Jersey Shore towns, Union Beach, Seaside, etc but its all politics and everyone knows Aronsohn is desperate for higher office. Personally, I hope he runs for something and wins... and get him out Ridgewood. He's made a mess of it; gutted every department but police and fire (he won't battle the unions) , then claims these departments can't get the worked done, then wants to outsource everything, all to build his base of campaign contributors.