A Pithy Parable

Once upon a time, a congregation of like minded folks joined together to form a Church, dedicated to advancing the common good of its members. As a condition of membership, it insisted that its congregants provide a certain percentage of their income to fund its charitable works. That money, the elders promised, would sustain the poorer members of the church, provide housing, education, and medical care for the young, the old, the lame, the halt, and the blind. This share of your income – deducted before you attend to any of your own family’s needs – is considerable, but you consider it worthy cause. Most of that money goes to the national church; some stays in your local parish. We’ll deal only with the local parish now: St. Brendan’s.

For years, it works out acceptably, if not without problems. Initially, the folks employed in the church's programs regarded them as sacred missions – assisting the young, the old, or the poor – and were willing to sacrifice for them, taking modest salaries. For them, service was its own reward. Just as you put the needs of the less fortunate members of the parish ahead of your own with your donations, so that people who provided that actual service sacrificed to minister to those in need.

Years pass, and you come to discover, though, that these folks now draw substantial salaries, twice as much as the community average, or more; sometimes a quarter million per year. They receive magnificent health benefits, sometimes for life. They can retire ten years or so before anyone else in the congregation; unlike most of the congregants, who have savings plans and must be frugal, the charity workers retire on guaranteed pensions which rise with inflation – and then some. They get paid for sick days when they’re lucky enough not to get sick. In some cases, they work only 185 days a year. When they need a building constructed for one of their projects, they hire the highest-priced workers they can find.

Then, a string of Pastors – Fr. Jim, Fr. Dick, and Fr. Jon – tells you that you’re not paying enough. As a condition of remaining in the local church, they demand that you fork over ever larger percentages of your income. If you dare question them, they accuse you of being hostile to the poor, or anti-children. All they ask, they contend, is that your do your "fair share". And, they ask, if we don’t attend to the needs of the sick, the poor, the young, and the old, who will?

You begin to notice that you can’t afford to give your kids the kind of things you’d like to. Interestingly, though, many of the people working in these charitable programs seem to be able to afford things you can’t. While you’re scrimping and saving, they -- and the people they serve -- demand more and more every year. You're told that your desire to put your own kids first is selfish, mean-spirited, and probably racist.

But you notice that the church down the block doesn’t seem to have this problem. It gets by on half of what your church demands from you. And you wonder: it’s all very well and good to want to educate the young, provide succor to the sick, clothe the naked, and house the homeless, but just how much sacrifice do they expect? Then, you hear Deacon Shure tell you that the problem lies in the fact that they let you keep too much of your own money in the first place, and that’s the last straw.

Fed up, you reluctantly join the neighboring church, St. Buck’s. You discover that, unlike your old church, all the buildings are well-maintained, the parking lot paved. You find the parish school running quite nicely on half the per student cost of your former church, with massive parental involvement. You see no one starving in the pews, no one being denied health care. Indeed, in this parish, if someone needs help, the congregation, instead of hiring someone to do it, gets volunteers to do it. They expect, as a condition of your membership, that you’ll give of your time and expertise rather than your money. Your kids get the things they deserve and you help, like you should, when you’re asked and when you can. The people who receive the charity don’t take it as an entitlement; they’re happy to receive it and they only ask when absolutely necessary. They NEVER demand. And there is no cadre of folks purporting to serve those beneficiaries, who seem to be doing exceptionally well while doing good.

You sit one afternoon and contemplate the different churches. Not that some folks in your present parish don’t need more help than they get, but your present church understands that the appropriate measure of your contributions is not what other folks need, but what you think you can afford. Somehow, without the ever increasing exactions your of your previous parish, the less fortunate members of your present parish seem to be getting along fine. And your parish’s membership is growing; many of your neighbors have joined you there.

You look back wistfully on St. Brendan’s and notice that it’s membership continues to decline while it’s financial demands on its members continues to soar. You notice that only very rich folks – who deeply believe in the Church’s mission and can afford its demands – very poor folks (curiously, an ever increasing number of these), and the church’s employees remain. In fact, you observe that many of this last group actually join your church; the don’t mind reaping the benefits of working for St. Brendan’s, but they prefer the modest requests for funds at St. Buck’s. Indeed, many of them send their kids to your parish school, believing it better than the school at St. Brendan’s.

And you take away this lesson: the extent of human need is boundless and cannot be met through forced exactions. The community is best served when people help when they can and to the extent they can afford, in such way as they see fit. Your Pastor might cajole, persuade, even shame you into doing more, but when he refrains from demanding, the entire community seems to prosper. Attempts to compel people to put the needs of others before the needs of their own family are not only fundamentally unfair, they’re doomed to fail, as they destroy the community they purport to serve.

Gas Pains

Whatever the results of PNJ’s puffy "intelligence" poll, Senator John Adler ranks among the State’s smartest legislators. (Contrary to popular belief, the Legislature contains many men and women possessed of first-class intellects.) But, alas, politics often motivates extremely intelligent folks to take positions they know to be absolutely batty. Query whether succumbing to political expedience either serves the public or can be squared with intellectual honesty?

Consider poor Barack Obama. He was for gun control before he was against it. He opposed capital punishment until he realized that advocating for the rights of child rapists had very little political upside. He once threatened to filibuster a bill which provided immunity for telecoms which (gasp!) cooperated with the government to find terrorists, then meekly changed his mind. NAFTA, and trade in general, was evil and needed to be, at best, renegotiated; no, wait, it’s actually not such a bad thing after all. And, now, on his signature issue – the immediate and unequivocal turn-tail-and-run, retreat from Iraq, (he once said that genocide itself provided an insufficient rationale to put American soldiers in harms way) – he’s suddenly making adult noises. A "shift of nuance" as the media calls it.

All to the delightful consternation of the Moveon left. One leftist group even sent out a proposal to "embargo" campaign contributions to Obama to ensure that he stays "progressive".

Obama’s movement toward sanity constitutes little surprise; he needed the ultra-left vote to win the nomination, but toeing that line in a general election is s recipe for McGovern-style numbers, and Obama knows it. But his sudden change of mind (if not of heart) clearly demonstrates a certain lack of principle; essentially every statement he ever made, from pledging to participate in the public-financing of elections on, has proven subject to summary repudiation when the components of the electorate to which he feels obligated to appeal, change.

Make no mistake; Obama’s a brilliant man. He knows precisely what he’s doing. Put simply, he was either dishonest back when, or he’s fibbing now. There’s simply no way to reconcile his shifting positions. Not a single fact has changed, no new data has been presented; only the composition of the audience differs.

Of course, those not on the far-left fringe welcome his new positions as marked improvements, but the inevitable question arises: why did he suddenly convert? Only crass opportunism suffices as an explanation, which leads, inevitably, to the well-founded suspicion that he cannot be trusted to adhere to his newfound positions if elected and freed from the necessity of appealing to the electorate.

Politics will do that to ambitious, intelligent folks, who believe it necessary to hide their intelligence from the electorate when thoughtfulness produces an unpopular policy position.

Which brings us back to John Adler.

Consider the good Senator's recent press release on the subject of energy. His plan, he asserts, will lower gas prices while creating jobs and stimulating business. A cute trick, if one can pull it off. So, the plan is ...?

Spend oodles of tax dollars on wind, solar, and bio-fuels, while prosecuting oil companies for price gouging, increasing their taxes, etc.

In short, the typical, substance-free blather of the radical left.

Alas.

The Senator offers precisely one good proposal related to the price of gas: stop shipments to the strategic petroleum reserve. That might actually help drive gas prices lower. Indeed, go further: start selling off a few million barrels a day. Increase supply = lower prices.

One scans Senator Adler’s proposal in vain for any suggestion that the price of oil – or energy – actually depends upon the supply thereof. The self-appointed environmentalists love to point out that if we start drilling for oil in the US now, it won’t be on line for years. But virtually every one of Adler’s proposals – some of which make sense – are, at best, long term projects which will have precisely zero effect on the price of gas. Now or ever.

Oh, and you will not find the word "nuclear" in any of my esteeded colleague's proposed "solutions".

Let us be very clear: it’s disingenuous in the extreme for a Democrat to rail against high gas prices; Democrats LIKE high gas prices because they firmly believe that we should use less petroleum. Not because we get if from the Mideast, but because, like Al Gore, they regard the internal combustion engine as the greatest environmental crime ever committed. At best, like Obama, they wish the price had increased more slowly, to permit more gradual adjustments. Or risen as a result of a huge tax increase so as to provide government with more money to waste.

There is one, and only one, way to moderate gasoline prices in a world defined by increasing demand: increase supply. And that requires digging holes in the ground in places likely to make oil emerge therefrom, which Senator Adler – and just about every other Democrat – opposes.

It’s perfectly fair to oppose such drilling, provided one honestly addresses that subject. But contending that raising oil company taxes, or punishing "price gouging" (whatever that is) will have the slightest effect on prices exemplifies the Harry Potter theory of economics: wave one’s magic wand and things will change. It’s patently dishonest.

So dishonest that a man of Adler’s intelligence can’t possibly believe it.

Unaffordable Housing

And you wanted to know why taxes, especially property taxes, continue to mushroom?

The Ledger recently brought word of a state/federal project to create or remodel 872 low and moderate income housing units in several urban areas. The total price tag: $217,013,328. OK, let’s do a little math, shall we? That’s almost a quarter million for EACH unit. (And of those, 120 units are merely being remodeled.)

Now, Hizzonor tells us that he wants to construct 100,000 units of such housing throughout the State in the near future. Leave aside the massive sprawl associated therewith; the cost of those units, apparently, approaches $25 billion. The State, as Paul Mulshine so eloquently observed, "has no dough" so it goosed the obligation to construct those units off onto suburban towns. Those towns possess essentially one source of revenue: property taxes. $25 billion exceeds the total annual property tax collection in the entire state.

Not to fear, we’re told; the recently imposed 2.5% tax on non-residential development will fund such projects. And it will ... assuming that someone undertakes $1 trillion worth of non-residential construction over the course of the next few years. That’s a lot of Xanadus.

So, if the provisions of the recently adopted A-500 are assumed to be coterminous with the COAH-Corzine proposal to construct 100,000-110,000 units of new low and moderate income housing, suburban taxpayers will need to pony up $25 billion, less whatever the beneficiaries expend which, in the case of Very Low income folks, to which much of this housing is to be directed, will be essentially nothing.

That figure, of course, merely encompasses constructing the units themselves. It fails to consider the roads, sewers, and schools serving that many new units will require, together with the vast horde of new public employees necessary to provide services thereto. The property tax hit will be enormous.

And just where are all the folks to take these units to come from? NJ is steadily losing productive citizens, at a 100,000 per year clip. Do we intend to empty our cities entirely, or are we emptying other countries, subsidizing the influx of impecunious immigrants at huge taxpayer expense?

After the budget process concluded, the Democrats crowed that it contained no "Christmas Tree" items, aka pork, and many members of the media, either complicit or credulous, toed the Party Line. Meanwhile, Hizzonor clucked sympathetically while slashing municipal aid to smaller, well-run municipalities, contending that the budget could not be balanced unless these smaller towns somehow got by with less.

Actually, such cuts make sense. We elect local officials to balance desires for local services against the impact of same upon the local taxpayers. Municipalities ought to receive nothing in state aid. The costs of hiring that extra cop in Somerville ought to be borne, wholly, by local residents.

But, apparently, that obligation only extends to Republican suburbs. Badly run, profligate – and, unsurprisingly, Democratically run – towns receive a windfall. The media now reports that 6 so-called distressed cities will divvy up $127 million in pork ... er, extraordinary municipal aid, all designed to insulate them from making precisely the same sort of painful decisions confronting their suburban counterparts.

No pork? Puh-leeze.

So, while imposing a tremendous tax burden on the suburbs, the present Administration and the present Democratic Majority continue to lavish pork on Democratic towns, protecting the residents from the consequences of foolish local electoral decisions.

Or, actually, inspired electoral decisions. As long as folks like Mayor-Senator Brian Stack continue to bring home the bacon – to the tune of $12.5 million of other people’s money, on top of already lavish subsidies paid for by suburban taxpayers for local schools and other municipal aid – it would require almost God-like virtue on the part of the local electorate to turn such a pig-farmer out of office.

Conversely, until such time as the State imposes precisely the same discipline on Union City as it imposes on Morris Township, taxes and spending will continue to balloon.

Energy Honesty (Not)

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee – as well as most Democrats – believes passionately that the American people are idiots.

How else to explain their most recent ad (they took credit for the "content" of said ad, despite the utter lack of content) and for their absurd energy policies.

Let’s start with certain basics: if the demand for a particular product increases, so will its price. If government artificially constricts supply, prices will increase. These are immutable economic laws, not subject to political amendment or repeal. And they apply to oil in spades.

And let’s be absolutely clear: Leftists HATE oil. They’re absolutely delighted about high prices and only wish that the continue to skyrocket. For decades, they have pursued policies – assertedly in support of the environment – intended to constrict supplies and drive up prices. An honest leftist admits it; alas, honest leftist – outside of university faculties – are rare birds and, in politics, vanishingly rare, for the simple reason that their policies are often wildly unpopular, when fully understood.

And, so, we find Barack Obama desperately backpedaling on guns, on trade, even on Iraq, because he knows that the people reject the sort of extremism he espoused to prevail over his equally radical primary adversary. Pandering to Moveon may work in March, but it’s a recipe for getting 40% of the vote in November.

Which brings us back to oil. America, alone in the world, refuses to exploit its natural resources. It must puzzle the Russians mightily, as they strive mightily to develop their oil fields in Siberia, that America refuses to exploit its resources in similar areas in Alaska, based upon the wholly ridiculous notion that it might tick off a few caribou. Cuba and China must be laughing, as they prepare to exploit oil resources not far from Florida, that Democrats in Congress refuse to permit American companies to do the same thing. Britain and Norway, as they drill in the North Sea, must chuckle to themselves that the most technologically advanced nation in the world quakes with fear at the small risk associated with ocean drilling. And Brazil must be positively giddy, as they prepare to do the same.

And, all the while, our good buddies in the Middle East laugh all the way to the bank, raking in tens of billions a month from Americans, while are oil resources stay in the ground.

All because Democrats are simply too fastidious to dig holes in the ground.

But, now, because their policies had the entirely predictable result – indeed, the very result they intended – and produced huge price increases, the Left is in a panic. Surprisingly, people actually hate high gas prices and have begun to realize that they’re the Democrats’ fault. And, so, fearful that the people seem to be catching on, the Democrats are casting about for someone on whom to fix the blame.

They settled on speculators and oil companies.

Yup. Right. Those nasty folks who buy and sell commodities futures must be the cause. Or, alternatively, the companies that actually bring the (mostly foreign) oil to us. They’re making a lot of money selling gas (not nearly as much as government, but there’s no such thing as a windfall tax) and that, of course, must be Bad.

So, the Left’s solution? Slap a big tax on oil companies and stop futures trading.

That’ll work, for sure. Tax increases ALWAYS produce lower prices, right?

There are two ways to reduce prices: reduce demand and/or increase supplies. Period.

Demand can be addressed in numerous ways, most of which the Democrats refuse to consider. For example, for years now, a bill has been pending in the Legislature to exempt high mileage vehicles from the sales tax, a huge benefit to those wishing to do the environmentally responsible thing. Indeed, the present sponsor is none other than Linda Stender; one might think that her Party, if only for the crass purpose of advancing her congressional campaign, might post a proposal which is both taxpayer and environmentally friendly (an astonishing rarity). But, no. That would mean a revenue loss. The Left will happily spend taxpayer money on such products, through government, but will not forego revenue for the same purpose.

Too, although championing alternative fuels, the Democrats have done nothing to reverse the inane tariff on imported ethanol. Although biofuels have been revealed as deeply problematic – the recent run up in food prices is the entirely predictable result of using corn for fuel rather than for food – if Brazil and other nations blessed with the right climate to grow sugar use it for fuel and wish to sell it to us, why, pray tell, do we discourage that?

But the Left wants it both ways: it wants high oil prices and to evade the wrath of the public over high gas prices. Ergo their tactic of pinning the blame on the oil companies for the problems leftist "environmental" policies produced.

Let’s be clear: for the foreseeable future, oil will be a necessary commodity. While the price will certainly increase (hopefully slowly, to permit economic adjustment, rather than suddenly as it has recently) over time as demand waxes and supplies wane, that is no warrant to refuse to employ the supplies we already have. Leaving tens, if not hundreds of billions of barrels of oil in the ground massively increases prices and dependency upon foreign sources. The fault for that rests squarely on the shoulders of the political Left.

If the Left had the courage of its convictions, it would state, outright: "Oil is bad. Higher prices encourage people to use more environmentally friendly fuels and to use less of them, which is good. We FAVOR high oil prices and hope they go higher. If you want lower prices, vote Republican, because they’ll drill off our coasts, in Alaska, or wherever else it might be found. We won’t because we think it’s a bad idea. Make your electoral choices accordingly."

Conservatives, contrariwise, say: "we think high oil prices are bad and hurt the economy. We’re not going to wean ourselves from oil tomorrow, although it’s a salutary goal to stop sending money overseas to despots and tyrants. The best way to do that is to responsibly develop all domestic sources, which will help reduce prices at home and leave us less dependent upon evil folks for our energy. (Oh, and we like atomic power, too, and aren’t opposed to damming up rivers, like they are)."

And if the electorate feels that it’s best served by higher energy prices, it would vote for Democrats. If not, it would vote for Republicans. Simple.

But it will not do for the Democrats to attempt to flee from the intended consequences of their own policies. Simple honesty may be in short supply, but I thought this was the year for the politics of "change". The first "change" should be treat the electorate like adults and take the consequences of your own policy positions.