Responsibility is the Answer

Recently, the legislative mail has overflowed with requests – demands, more accurately – from scads of public employees, all (except one) objecting vociferously to the exceedingly modest changes proposed to the state pension and benefit plans.

In a sense, the outrage is entirely understandable. Even if these irresponsible wages and benefits never should have been granted in the first instance, they were. To my eternal shame, I actually voted for one massive pension benefit increase. (In my (weak) defense, the pension benefit pooh-bahs swore that the funds were completely solvent; indeed, operating at a surplus. Permit me a shout out of my erstwhile colleague, Rick Merkt, the only one of us with the foresight, and the courage, to stand up against a truly idiotic proposal) And, furthermore, given the outrageously irresponsible behavior of every administration since 1997 with respect to pension benefits, the ire of public employees makes some modicum of sense.

But not a lot. Because the lion’s share of the hole in the pension fund resulted from a market collapse, not from pension underfunding. And these folks contributed not one thin dime to their post retirement health benefits, secured not by free and fair bargaining, but by hardball political tactics.

Public service requires sacrifice, and that "Me First" attitude displayed by not a few public servants is truly unseemly. While some say, accurately, that public employees "deserve" good pay and benefits, the unassailable fact is that the public can’t afford them.

True, politicians have been able to buy votes by increasing benefits and pay, while kicking the can down the road for their successors to pay. Indeed, the ire of the public employee unions would be much more understandable if they did not enthusiastically endorse and politically support those who were most responsible for creating the present morass. (Father Jim, please call your office)

So, while public employees are not to blame, they received promises made by irresponsible pols, most of whom are retired or incarcerated. It falls to us to fix the problems they created, and to ensure that this never happens again.

I suggest certain modest proposals:

• No governmental entity shall enter into any contract of employment lasting in excess of three years, nor one which makes any unfunded promises of compensation or benefits beyond the date of its termination.

No more sweetheart vacation accumulation, etc., because whatever contract makes the promise must also fund it.

• All municipal authority shall repose in the hands of the Governing Body, elections for which shall take place on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Abolish all local Boards or authorities, endowing one municipal entity with full authority to govern. Give it the power, and hold it electorally responsible. Local residents will get the kind of government they deserve, and that for which they are willing to pay.

• No person employed by any governmental entity shall participate in partisan political activity nor donate to any candidate for office. No organization engaged in collective bargaining with any governmental entity shall participate in partisan political activity. No person holding a position of profit with any governmental entity shall be a candidate for, or serve in, elected office.

Generally, restrictions upon political activity are problematic. But governmental employees are different; they should not be attempting to elect their own bosses. It’s an inherent conflict of interest for employees to wield disproportionate power to secure benefits for themselves at taxpayer expense. They should win such benefits as they can at the bargaining table, not in the political process.

• All governmental employees shall serve at will, terminable for cause.

And can be dismissed, just the same as any private employee. No tenure, no civil service, etc. All employment decisions based upon merit. And if someone finds himself in the victim of a warrantless termination, that’s why they have unions.

• The terms and conditions of local employment shall be established by the local governmental employer.

Again, all decisions respecting local governmental employment should be made by the locals, answerable to the people. No benefits should be awarded by statute.

• The Legislature shall expend no funds for the benefit of, or in assistance of, any local governmental entity.

With local authority comes local responsibility.

• The Legislature shall expend no funds on gifts, nor upon any competent person over the age of 18 years, save for compensation for services rendered to, or property acquired by, the state, in conformity with a bona fide contract entered into before the provision of such services or sale of such property.

Buying votes with other people’s money is always a problem. This ensures that the state funds are used for state purposes. Couple with the proceeding paragraph, it ensures that all educational funds flow through parents, increasing freedom and massively cutting property taxes.

Our present property tax difficulties rest primarily with a dislocation of responsibility: the Legislature awards benefits, through statute, demanding that the locals pay. Just a few years ago, the Legislature passed a gift onto the NJEA, proscribing contract imposition. Local police and firefighters enjoy interest arbitration, which enables one man to impose a contract upon the taxpayers.

The key to any successful political system is electoral responsibility and clear lines of authority. Draw clear lines, and, then, oblige each governmental entity to be responsible for its own bailiwick. Prohibit pols from pushing the consequences of present policy onto future generations.
And, the, let the electorate determine for itself how it chooses to be governed.

Democrats Cut Taxes!!!

The folks at BlueJersey.com posted a diary entry under the heading "Christie’s Class Warfare" which contains the following assertion:

"In the middle of making drastic cuts to many programs which target the middle class and while complaining about the "massive budget deficit" (a number that is fully unsupported by the facts and reality), he has let the surtax on those earning over $400,000 expire - a move that will cost the state $300 million annually."

Three brief observations:

(1) tax cuts never cost the state a nickel; SPENDING costs money. The underlying assumption behind an assertion such as that made in this paragraph is that any time government lets you keep any portion of your income, it’s doing you a favor. It’s the fallacy behind the "tax expenditure" theory. The failure to tax is NOT an expenditure and should not be treated as such.

(2) similarly, the thought underlying the assumption that cutting programs "targeted to the middle class" is that folks with more money somehow owe it to their less prosperous neighbors to underwrite the hiring of hordes of well-paid, obscenely benefitted, unionized, politically active public employees to undertake said services. Hence, the "class warfare" title: someone who refuses to deprive A of the product of his labor for the benefit of B, who hasn’t earned it, is a "class warrior". Um, no. He’s an advocate of freedom.

And, finally, (3), as it happens, Governor Christie had absolutely nothing do to with permitting that obscene tax surcharge to expire. Let us accord credit where it is due, to erstwhile Governor Jon Corzine and the Democrats in the Legislature!! Perhaps for the first time in the last eight years, they took an action – through inaction – which will actually benefit the New Jersey economy. That tax rate was "temporary"; it expired of its own limitations three weeks before Christie took office. Corzine and the Dems in the Legislature always had it within their power to extend that rate, if they desired. They had the votes and does anyone doubt that JC would have signed it? Had they felt that this was good policy, nothing stood in their way – save, perhaps, the lesson learned in November.

Perhaps because they simply wished to spite their vanquisher, they petulantly refused to extend this tax. And, out of that pique, and that political calculation, comes good policy.

I would dearly love to be able to claim credit for a $300 million tax cut, but simple honesty prevents me from doing so. While the blame for the nonsensical policy which produced that tax rate – and the resulting economic damage – remains at the feet of the Democrats, to them, too, must go the credit for repentance.

Congratulations, then, to Governor Corzine, Speaker Roberts, Senate President Codey, and the Democratic legislative majority!! For the first time in eight years, confronted with the opportunity to do real harm, they demurred. And the state will be that much better off for their (in)action.

Response to Ledger on Citizens United

To predictable howls of leftist outrage, the SCOTUS recently declared that groups of citizens, called "corporations", may spend money on political campaigns.

Consider the curious leftist reading of the First Amendment: the corporation known as The New York Times enjoys a constitutional right to endorse or oppose candidates, but the corporation known as Exxon does not.

Allegedly lamenting the reversal of precedent, leftists object that judicial nominees, like Samuel Alito, promised to be "modest", and that upsetting statutes and rejecting precedent betrays that promise.

Again, a curious – indeed crassly situational – objection. Leftists voice no displeasure whatsoever when the statutes under judicial attack define marriage, or when the precedent reversed results in limits on capital punishment.

Critically, leftists object less to the reasoning in Citizens United than to the result. This represents the basic distinction between "conservatives" and leftists. Leftists only care about results.

"Conservatives" (a word with little meaning when applied to judges) go where the text and history of the constitution take them, not to the destination they might ideologically prefer. "Conservatives" believe that the words of the Constitution mean what the people who adopted that document intended. Leftists assert that the words mean, essentially, nothing; that they should be judicially "interpreted" to mandate politically desirable results.

"Conservatives" respect precedent because the rule of law requires it. Judicial modesty compels deference to the results reached in prior cases. But judicial modesty, while salutary, must be tempered by the occasional necessity to invalidate popular, but unconstitutional laws. And, sometimes, precedent is just plain wrong.

Were precedent sacrosanct, Plessy (separate-but-equal) would remain unchallenged and lawyers would routinely cite Dred Scott.

"Conservatives" believe that precedent consistent with the original public understanding of the Constitution must be followed. When, however, a previous Court diverged from that understanding, the people’s will trumps the opinion of a previous Court.

Judges, being human, occasionally permit politics to color their decisions. Sometimes, they simply goof. Were precedent immutable, judges, not the people, would write the supreme law, and the crassest judicial usurpation would be etched in constitutional stone. Not being gods, the work of judges must be subject to continual review. When clearly demonstrated to be erroneous, precedent must fall.

Just so here. Whether unlimited spending on campaigns constitutes good policy is irrelevant. Political advocacy, individual or collective, seems to be precisely what the First Amendment intended to protect against governmental restriction. Previous judicial determinations undercutting this freedom seemed based more on ideology than a fair reading of the text. The Court considered their rationale, then properly rejected them as erroneous, inconsistent with the original understanding.

There is nothing the least bit "modest" in blindly refusing to reconsider flawed precedent or acceding to unconstitutional government policy. Indeed, doing so constitutes gross judicial malpractice.

The Court got it right in Citizens United not because the outcome was politically desirable (that’s debatable) but because the reasoning was constitutionally correct.