Business Borrowing Follies

"State lawmakers yesterday approved borrowing a record $165 million to bankroll this year’s payments to scores of businesses under the Business Employment Incentive Program."

So sayeth the Ledger. And the reporter informs us that, next year, we’re looking at another $180 million – borrowed again – to fund the program.

Now, one can understand why the business community likes the program. Having been the victim of much of the Democrats’s massive tax increases – something on the order of $2 billion or more per year – getting this paltry percentage back strikes them as better than nothing.

But, let’s consider:

First, none of this massive new borrowing went before the people for approval, in patent violation of the Constitution as written, even if not as "interpreted" by our illustrious Supreme Court.

Query whether this spending is "on-budget"? If not, it demonstrates, yet again, that the Codey Administration’s tax and spending plan contained significant dishonesties, not fully listing all State spending for the next year.

More tellingly, the BEIP is little more than an industrial policy, attempting to pick out "winners" and award them with tax subsidies as "incentives". Obviously, this completely undercuts the Democrats’ oft stated position that tax policy does not drive businesses away; if a state grant will bring in a particular company, does it not follow that a tax increase will tend to drive other businesses away?

Rather than doling out borrowed funds to specific businesses – the sole purpose of which seems to be to give elected officials the opportunity to take credit for that one company’s decision to relocate or remain – would it not make eminently more sense simply to repeal the massive tax increases on ALL businesses, thereby benefitting everyone, rather than a chosen few?

If a $165 million gift to a few hundred select companies creates jobs, would not repeal of the $2 billion tax increase work wonders to encourage businesses generally to relocate and expand here?

‘Course, that WOULD require a few "hard decisions", such as the Democrats routinely assert need to be made just before they refuse to make them. (The only "hard choice" the Democrats ever seem to make is the difficult decision to raise taxes) It might mean rolling back some of the massive spending increases the Dems passed. But if they’re serious about wanting to create jobs – given their record, there is every reason to believe that they are not – a general business tax cut would send the appropriate message.

Abbott Outrages

The Ledger reports – yet again – that the paltry $6 billion we ponied up to build schools in the Abbott districts falls far short of their "needs".

• $178 million on projects which never got off the ground;
• obscene "expert" fees;
• schools which cost half again as much to build as those which were not being underwritten by the state taxpayers.

Call this the Mulshine effect: if someone offers a governmental official a credit card, for which someone else will pay the frieght, he’ll find a way to max it out. And then moan about he much more he needs. Perfectly serviceable schools are replaced with newer models, not because they must be, but because they can be.

Simply put, why would anyone in Newark give a damn about how much their schools cost, since they aren’t paying a nickel for them? OF COURSE they build Taj Mahals; the schools are "free".

When you consider that there are 30 Abbott districts, and we allocated $6 billion for schools, that works out to $200 million per district. Sounds like a lot of money, until you consider that just one school in West New York – a magnificent affair, boasting a huge stadium and solid gold amenities – costs $130 million (and will CERTAINLY run over budget). At $100 million plus per copy, the number of schools built for a mere six bil will be relatively small.

So, Newark can glom $200 million plus from the Port Authority and employ it to construct a white elephant arena, while we’re sending $600 million or so into the City because they can’t afford to run their own schools. Is it any surprise that irresponsibility runs rampant?

Not one more nickel for this boondoggle.

What Would the Namesake Say?

Fox News reports on a story out of New Jersey. Even when dealing with a media outlet which tends to care about facts, I sincerely hope that the report is wrong. If correct, it demonstrates both Political Correctness run amok and, yet again, why Peter Harvey may be the worst Attorney General ever to hold that office.

First, enter the complainant, one Arlene Holpp Scala. She is described, on the University’s web site, as:

a full-time associate professor in the Women's Studies Department. She has been teaching at WPUNJ since 1981. Her teaching career began in the English Department at William Paterson College(WPC), where she worked as an adjunct teaching writing courses. In 1986, she received a half-time appointment in Women's Studies. In 1996, she received the University's (still a college, at the time) first full-time appointment in Women's Studies. Dr. Scala teaches "Women's Changing Roles," "Racism and Sexism in the U.S.," "Contemporary Feminist Issues," "Women's Studies Capstone," "Lesbian Issues," "Life Passages: The Female Experience,"and "Sex Equity in Education."

The web continues to notes that the good doctor is an advisor to an entity know as "the Feminist Collective" She also serves on an entity called the "Race and Gender Project Steering Committee".

Next time Willie P comes to me and asks for additional state aid, or I receive a single note lamenting increasing tuition, I will politely write back that any entity which can afford the salary of someone to "teach" "courses" such "Lesbian Issues", or has the money for a "Race and Gender Steering Committee" clearly has much room for economies before it comes looking to the taxpayer. Indeed, any public institution which even HAS a "women’s studies" department displays a lot of chutzpah in asking for (more) state money. If they can afford frivolities like that, they utterly lack cause to complain.

I digress.

Now, enter the true victim, the deliciously named Jihad Daniel. He receives an unsolicited E-mail from the esteemed "Professor"advertising an upcoming movie entitled 'Ruthie and Connie: Every Room in the House,' a lesbian relationship story." Apparently unimpressed by what, by its title, sounds like a magnificent work to rival anything by a Dead White Male, Mr. Daniel responded:

"Do not send me any mail about 'Connie and Sally' and 'Adam and Steve.' These are perversions. The absence of God in higher education brings on confusion. That is why in these classes the Creator of the heavens and the earth is never mentioned."

Hell hath no fury like a committed ideologue faced with dissent. Tolerance of opposing viewpoints? Such is an utterly alien concept to the political Left. The offended "Professor" responded with an official complaint, contending that the E-mail she received sounded "threatening".

Well, I suppose. If, by "threatening" one means the expression of an opinion contrary to that the Professor espouses. In a normal society, the "Professor’s" complaint would have been consigned, perhaps, to an outraged letter to the student newspaper, holding the benighted offender up to the obloquy of the fellow travelers at the Race and Gender Steering Committee.

But this is New Jersey.

First, the President of the College – who really ought to know better – issued a letter of reprimand. Not to the "Professor" for filing a patently silly complaint and wasting everyone’s time, but to Mr. Daniel.

Upset, he enlisted the aid of an advocacy group, who reminded the President that even if colleges are not the sites of vigorous debate they pretend to be, they are, when public, still covered by the Constitution. And people have the right to express their views without fear of retaliation.

From stage left, enter Peter Harvey. Displaying every bit as much energy defending First Amendment rights as he has for rooting out political corruption, the AG defended the penalty, claiming that Mr. Daniel’s comments ran afoul of New Jersey policy respecting discrimination, harassment, and creating a hostile work environment.

In other words, one is entitled to send an unsolicited E-mail touting a lesbian movie, but no one may react with politically incorrect disgust.

The upshot would appear to be that at New Jersey public colleges, everyone possesses the unassailable right to express every radical left wing, politically correct opinion they wish. But the slightest dissent from campus orthodoxy invites a reprimand for "harassment".

If the facts are as reported – one of the first lesson every pol learns is never trust anything you read in the media – Willie P owes both Mr. Daniel and the public an apology. Mr. Daniel should be the recipient of an apology for the mistreatment he received for a perfectly harmless expression of opinion.

And the public should receive an apology for the University’s waste of scarce tax dollars on "Professor" Scala’s salary. She, too, has the right to express her views, but given the seemingly ridiculous nature of the "courses" she "teaches", she should not receive a public subsidy to do so.

By Their Friends Shall You Know Them

Slow news days make for boring blogs.

Nonetheless, I thought I might continue on the theme offered by Senator Lautenberg the other day. To refresh your recollection, he asserted, in effect, "by their friends shall you know them". Put another way, you judge candidates by the company they keep.

Two of the first folks to endorse the Democratic team in the 25th LD were Congressman Robert Menendez (from Hudson County) and Assemblywoman Nellie Pou (from Paterson). We can assume, then, that the local Dems, receiving the support of these two products of urban Democratic machines, are, more or less, on the same page. So, let’s have a look at the record and see if we, in Morris County, would benefit from the sorts of policies that Menendez and Pou support.

Congressman Menendez exemplifies virtually everything wrong with the Democratic Party. He voted against tax reform, voted against abolishing marriage penalty, voted against making Bush tax cuts permanent, and voted against eliminating the death tax. He supports racial preferences and favors partial birth abortion. He opposes giving students in failing urban schools the chance receive a decent education. He consistently ranks among the most irresponsible of the "Big Spenders" in Congress. He consistently opposes efforts to stop illegal immigration.

Assemblywoman Nellie Pou never met the tax increase she didn’t love. She voted for doubling taxes on business, for the mis-labeled "millionaires’" tax (which disproportionately affects Morris County), and in favor of the illegal, unconstitutional borrowing the Assembly Democrats saddled the taxpayers with over the course of the past four years. She was an early supporter of the Presidential candidacy of Howard Dean. She received an "F" grade for her staunch opposition to basic Second Amendment Rights. She caved to union pressure and endorsed project labor agreements and banning of subcontracting, both of which added tens of millions to our tax bills. She supported the fraudulent tax shift convention, the only result of which would be to further increase taxes on Morris County residents while providing no spending control. She co-sponsors a proposal to permit illegal aliens to receive in-state tuition rates at public colleges.

The question, then, is whether the residents of Morris County would be well served by electing acolytes of these high-taxing, high-spending products of urban machines?

By their friends shall you know them. Senator Frank said it; it must be true.

Eminent Domain, New Brunswick Edition

NJN reports on yet another example of Eminent Domain abuse, this one occurring in New Brunswick.

The property owner asserts that the Rutgers Bookstore wanted for its own use the location presently occupied by New Jersey Books, a long-standing commercial establishment. New Brunswick, with visions of "redevelopment" sugar plums dancing in its head, proposes to seize the site and construct a mega-project. Once again, the government marches out the usual litany of benefits: increased ratables, higher tax revenues, aesthetic improvements, etc.

And, yet again, the humble "little guy" takes it in the teeth.

From the video, the site does not seem "blighted" in any real sense of the word. Instead, the city simply entertains a different vision for the site than does the property owner.

In discussing similar matters with one member of the fourth estate, he opined that one stubborn curmudgeon should not be permitted to stand athwart the tide of progress.

I respectfully, but vigorously, dissent.

The taking of property by a government may, under certain circumstances, be absolutely necessary. Highways, railroads, or similar improvements, which serve the public need, must go somewhere and, absent patent abuse of discretion, the determination of taking for same should be judicially respected. "Economic development" is patently different. Government needs a better rationale for taking one’s property than a desire to turn it over to more upscale neighbors.

This situation demonstrates the necessity for the enactment of something akin to ACR 256. Many of the other proposals presently pending don’t cover seizures of non-residential properties. ANY property owner should be free to thumb her nose at government attempts to compel a sale when the rationale is as flimsy as "redevelopment".

Judicial Overreach

If one needs any reinforcement of the necessity for care when making judicial appointments, one need only consider the dissenting opinion of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey in the recent case of Gerrity v. Hilton.

Now, New Jersey’s Supreme Court enjoys a well-deserved reputation as the worst Supreme Court in the United States, the pretensions of the Florida and Nevada Courts notwithstanding. It decisions in school funding, zoning, borrowing, and electoral cases are legendary for the judicial over-reach they demonstrate.

But, of late, a disturbing tendency toward actually reading statutes, and arriving at correct answers, threatens the Court’s reputation. First, the bear hunt case, in which the Court appropriately read the statutory language to accord the DEP Commissioner wide discretion. Then, the verbal threshold case, in which the Court insisted that the language the Legislature wrote meant what it said. In each case, the policy result is problematic, but the Legislature, not the Court, created the problem.

And, now, in a case arising under the Law Against Discrimination, the Court determines that equal treatment means precisely that, and that no special exception for pregnancy exists.

In Gerrity, plaintiff suffered through an exceptionally difficult pregnancy. Defendant employer worked under a policy pursuant to which up to six months of medical leave could be secured for any reason; plaintiff made use of that period, but when she was still unable to return to work as a result of her pregnancy related complications, defendant terminated her. Plaintiff sued, contending that the failure to make special accommodations for pregnancy constituted sex discrimination.

The Court quite properly ruled that the statute requires equal treatment, nothing more. That may, or may not, constitute good policy (it’s a lead pipe cinch that someone will introduce legislation in the Fall to reverse this result and offer special protections for pregnant women) but the Court quite properly deferred to the Legislature to make that policy determination.

What makes Gerrity noteworthy – aside from the atypical deference by the Court to Legislative prerogative – is the spectacularly poorly reasoned dissent from the Chief Justice. Consider just the following quote:

"We have always been vigilant in the protection of civil rights even when the Legislature has not yet addressed the precise form of discrimination before the Court. In doing so, we have not usurped a legislative function; rather, we have recognized the broad remedial purpose that animates the LAD and have interpreted the statute to give effect to that purpose. We have understood that the LAD, stripped to its essence, embodies a simple but powerful idea: that discrimination will not be tolerated in our society."

Translation: if we ignore the words of the statute and discern its "simple but powerful idea", we can arrive at the result we like.

Despite the Chief Justice’s assertion to the contrary, "usurping a legislative function" would be precisely the result of her opinion. Private "discrimination" is not illegal unless the Legislature so determines. The scope of "discrimination" proscribed by statute is, by very definition, a matter of legislative discretion and definition. Ignoring the express and unequivocal words of the statute to arrive at some underlying "purpose" strikes at the heart of the legislative process.

Given that the case arose under a statute, it might seem obvious that the words of the statute control. But not, apparently, if the result thus produced offends the sensibility of the Chief Justice. Instead, she would substitute her view of what the law ought to be for that which the Legislature actually wrote. A clearer example of judicial arrogance would be hard to imagine.
Simply put, if "... the Legislature has not yet addressed the precise form of discrimination before the Court", the only acceptable result at which a Court may arrive is to dismiss the case.

Justice nominee Roberts is reputed to be a "textualist", which is to say, he reads statutes to determine the intention of the Legislature which wrote them, rather than reaching into his gut to arrive at the "right" policy result. If so, and if he applies the same elementary analysis to the Constitution, he will be everything a Supreme Court Justice should be, and everything the NJ Chief is not.

An Exciting Health Insurance Idea

The Wall Street Journal reports on a Congressional proposal which could, in an instant, do more for uninsured New Jersey residents than all of Senator Vitale’s much vaunted compassion.

The idea is simple: any company licensed to do business in any state would be permitted to sell its approved product in every state.

As the Journal points out, one of the serious problems driving the costs of insurance out of sight in New Jersey is the plethora of mandates imposed by the Legislature. We INSIST, for instance, on coverage of fertility treatments, pregnancy costs, etc. Unsurprisingly, when EVERYTHING is covered, the costs are excessive.

And we suffer from the dubious distinction of being among the few states which insist that everyone who applies receive a policy, and that their rates not reflect the true costs of coverage. A person who waits until they have contracted AIDS to apply pays only slightly more than their perfectly healthy cousin. Unsurprisingly, absurd premiums drive those without chronic problems out of the market; buying a policy makes no economic sense, as the benefits they receive aren’t worth the premiums they’re asked to pay.

In one swoop, this proposal opens up the market to real competition. As the article points out, a low cost insurance policy can be had for $172 per month in Kansas, less than one sixth what a family would pay for that same coverage in "enlightened" New Jersey.

Instead of massive new taxpayer subsidies, new governmental programs, and a huge influx of cash, freedom might work. An 80% tax cut on the middle class sounds like a winning forumla.

The Company We Keep

Speaking on the subject of politicians in general and Doug Forrester in particular, our Junior (well, in terms of this tenure, anyway) Embarrassment, Frank Lautenberg, asserted that the electorate should judge us – and him – "... by the things they say and the company they keep ..."
Fair enough. Let’s go there.

First, let’s see how New Jersey’s Senators fare when representing the State’s interest in the Senate.

New Jersey – being a "wealthy" state – benefits disproportionately from the Bush tax cuts: on average, every New Jersey filer received a tax cut of almost $4000, second only to Connecticut. Jon Corzine – inexplicably – voted against these tax cuts. He strongly hints that he favors outright repeal. THAT – or even the suggestion that the so-called tax cuts for the "wealthy" ("wealthy (n): people who live in New Jersey") – would be an unmitigated disaster for New Jersey. And for our next governor, too. If JC gets elected Governor, given the massive spending increases he envisions for state government, he’d better pray that his successor displays more parochialism – wanting to keep New Jersey dollars here – than has he.

(In a sense, there’s a certain refreshing generosity displayed by the Democrats who "represent" us in Washington. Both Senators, and virtually the entire Dem Congressional delegation, routinely vote to tax the stuffing out of New Jersey residents and send the money to Louisiana and Wyoming. It’s a curious phenomenon; I call it "economic masochism", somewhat akin to Morris County residents voting to send Democrats to Trenton. Washington sees New Jersey as a piggy bank, to be tapped for programs in Arizona. Trenton views Morris County as an ATM for Sharpe James and his Newark cronies. In each case, the people’s economic self interest is clearly better served by electing Republicans.)

So, judge us by what we say: if you believe that New Jersey’s interest are best served by sending tens of billions more to Washington every year, to be spent in Arkansas, Corzine’s your guy.

Then, judge us by those with whom we associate. So, Senator Lautenberg doesn’t care for Dick Cheney or Karl Rove. He’s entitled to his view. But, consider: how many Dem bigwigs are doing time, have resigned in disgrace, or are high on Chris Christie’s to do list? Jim McGreevey, Robert Kushner, and Bob Torricelli are merely the smallest tip of the iceberg. Bosses? Think Norcross. Corruption? Think Hudson and Camden County. And consider that many of the greatest outrages are not crimes; far too many (primarily urban) Democrats seem to be doing very well for themselves on the public nickel, thank you very much, receiving plum contracts for themselves, friends, family, and cronies.

Governor Codey receives media (and popular) kudos for identifying problems, such as runaway pension and health care costs; it’s considered "courageous" to admit the existence of these fiscal tyrannosaurs. And, yet, for all the hype, he’s done precisely zip to solve the problems. The only part of the budget to take a substantive hit this year was that which benefitted property tax payers. The Dems, again, did precisely nothing to address exploding property taxes in the last four year, preferring to distract popular attention with a phony tax-shift convention specifically engineered to fail in the unlikely event it ever actually convenes.

So, Senator, challenge accepted.

Forrester should expressly and unequivocally embrace Bush’s economic policies, contending that same have been a Godsend for New Jersey. Contrariwise, you should expressly and unequivocally advocate a $4000 tax hike for every New Jersey taxpayer, the money for which would be sent to Mississippi.

In addition, we’re "stuck" with Cheney and Rove. Your Party, on the other hand, embraces the McGreevey legacy. You should run ads on how proud you are to be the Party of Torricelli, of James, of Norcross. You take full credit for the explosion in state taxes and spending. You accept full responsibility for the utter absence of any property tax relief/reform programs enacted over the course of the past four years.

Oh, and you honestly tell the people that we need to pay 12.5 cents more per gallon in gas taxes. Not abiding a lame duck session of the Legislature, but RIGHT NOW.

Yes, politicians SHOULD be judged by the policies we advocate, the record we make, and the people with whom we associate.

Environmental Demagoguery

A while back, one of my Democratic adversaries castigated me – in an overheated press release probably crafted by his out-of-district Hired Gun – for failing to vote in favor of a proposal to repeal "fast track" legislation. Upon receipt of a copy of the press release, I pointed out the small difficulty that the Bill he accused me of opposing had not, in fact, ever been considered by the Assembly. Of course, he refused to permit something as trivial as the facts to stand between him and a good story. Alas. Somewhat typical of political discourse.

Rather than respond point by point to a misinformed press release, I thought I might muse briefly on the subject of Fast Track, the Highlands, and open space protection in general.

No other County boasts as impressive or as aggressive an open space preservation program as does Morris County. In additional, almost every one of our municipalities supplements this salutary program with a dedicated open space tax of its own.

Alas, the State is asleep at the switch.

Preservation of open space is not rocket science: you identify the properties most in need of preservation, and you buy them.

Unfortunately, the state chose to attempt to gain that result by regulation instead of purchase. I voted against the Highlands Bill for one very simple reason: if it’s unfair to seize the home of someone in Newark for economic development – and it is – it’s just as unfair to seize the property of someone in Jefferson without paying for it. And THAT was the purpose of the Highlands Act.

Governing requires elected officials to prioritize spending; we simply lack sufficient funds to do all the wonderful things government might legitimately do. When it comes to open space preservation, that requires us to prioritize spending, directing our purchases to those areas most in need of immediate protection.

If one accepts the premise that priority numero uno ought to be the Highlands, why are we spending tens of millions of precious, scarce dollars, fooling around with urban parks? Leaving aside the fact that local improvements should be just that – local – if the Highlands is so horribly threatened – as some so-called environmentalists assert – why aren’t we postponing efforts to construct ball parks in Newark until such time as the Highlands – you know, that place from whence folks in Newark get their drinking water? – is preserved?

Now, Fast Track wanted for a certain coherence. The point of the law was to ensure that projects in relatively environmentally insensitive areas received permits to which they were otherwise entitled in a timely fashion. Why the Democratic sponsors of the proposal insisted upon creating an entirely new edifice of government instead of simply insisting that DEP do its job in a timely fashion puzzles me.

But the hysteria this proposal generated in the so-called environmentalist community cannot be objectively justified.

From the perspective of a Morris County legislator, the matter is somewhat academic; the areas affected by Fast Track involve only a relatively small part of Morris County. And it impacts the Highlands essentially not at all.

One must recall, of course, that Fast Track applies only to projects which are, or will be, approved by the local municipal authorities. Nothing in the Bill affects the rights of a municipality to reasonably limit development through its zoning Ordinance. Hence, if someone asserts that the law undercuts municipal or county open space efforts, they’re ... not telling the truth.

And one should carefully consider whether some so-called environmental activists are really interested in preventing sprawl. The Mother of All Sprawl is Mount Laurel, that wonderful decision which undercut hundreds of perfectly reasonable zoning ordinances and produced so many magnificent condo complexes. Many of the same so-called environmentalists presently screaming bloody murder over Fast Track SUPPORT Mt. Laurel. They favor environmental protection and open space protection only if it doesn't undercut their social agenda.

If the State – and these so-called environmentalists – were serious about preserving the Highlands, they’d support the immediate repeal of Mt. Laurel and the redirection of open space funds to purchase properties in the Highlands. In the absence of such common sense policies, their baying cannot be taken as serious advocacy.

Vote Fraud Blindness

During the last two year term, the Legislature tackled many new initiatives, ostensibly designed to improve New Jersey’s electoral system. Some of the ideas commanded virtually unanimous support; others were more problematic.

But notable by its absence was even the slightest effort to make the ballot box more secure by insisting on proper identification.

Consider this rant from a representative of the League of Women Voters in Georgia in response to a perfectly reasonable proposal to counteract vote fraud:

Georgia has become the toughest place in America for eligible registered voters to cast their ballots. After a rancorous and racially charged debate, Georgia lawmakers passed legislation to require voters to produce government-issued photo identification at the polls.

Georgia's new voter ID law will impact voters of all parties, of every race and in all parts of our state

For the hundreds of thousands of Georgia voters who do not drive, are not in the military, do not work for the government and do not travel abroad, getting a form of ID that will be accepted at the polls will involve traveling to one of only 56 locations in the state that issue such identification, waiting in long lines and paying a fee or declaring indigence.

This change is unconstitutional, nothing short of voter disenfranchisement and a tremendous threat to our most fundamental right, the right to vote."

So, now, being compelled to prove that you are entitled to vote is "unconstitutional", a mortal threat against the right to vote.

The possibility that some potential voter might be too lazy to spend an hour or so doing that which needs to be done to secure such an ID constitutes a very minor threat to democracy. Vote fraud presents a much more immediate menace. Across the nation, those who consider winning, and the attendant power victory produces, more important than actually getting more votes, often resort to vote fraud. Typically, this involves getting people to vote more than once, registering non-existent voters, and employing absentee ballots which are far easier to manipulate and far more difficult to police.

Here in New Jersey, and across the nation, the Democrats raised a massive stink about the wholly hypothetical possibility that some computer hacker might breach the voting machines and steal votes; they insisted that electronic voting machines produce paper receipts. And, yet, they did precisely nothing to prevent more mundane forms of voter fraud, which is to say, fraud methods which actually exist, example of which abound, and which could be substantially curtailed were some form of ID required to register and vote.

At minimum, some form of photo ID should be required for all voters. Ideally, we’d even go beyond that, and insist upon an electronic ID system with unique PIN numbers, similar to ATMs.

The political left – including, obviously, the LOWV – apparently believes that fair elections, in which only qualified voters cast ballots, represent a mortal threat to their electoral chances. That it’s better to tolerate fraud than to run the risk that some small group of otherwise qualified voters simply can’t find the time in their busy schedules – for years – to secure a voter ID card.

The Democrats enacted legislation which spends tens of millions of dollars to upgrade electronic voting machines against purely speculative threats, but refuses to take even the most modest action against abuses of which examples abound.

At what conclusion would a reasonable observer arrive?

The Times Weighs In

Comes the New York Times to discuss the process by which a Judge should render a decision, writing:

"Now the question is whether Judge Roberts, if confirmed, will, like those two justices (Scalia and Thomas), commit himself to recapturing a distant constitutional paradise in which the court was faithful to the original intent of the framers or whether, like the justice he would succeed, he finds himself comfortably in the middle rather than at the margin."

Ah, me. Let’s begin.

If a Justice is NOT "faithful to the original intent of the framers", how does she interpret the language of the document that they wrote? Judging hardly qualifies as metaphysics; the Constitution is not The Di Vinci Code, containing hidden meanings to be teased out and interpreted as Harry Potter might read tea leaves.

The Constitution is, in essence, a contract, written in reasonably comprehensible English. While reasonable men can, and do, disagree about how to apply the Framers’ intentions to modern circumstances, elementary principles of law demand that jurists restrict themselves to the text and history of a document when they attempt to interpret it. Judges lack the authority to impose their own moral compass or their own policy preferences upon the populace.

No "middle" or "margin" exists when one considers how a judge must act; those are POLITICAL concepts, utterly out of place in a courtroom.

Let’s take (say) racial preferences. The political left supports them; the political right opposes them. But a Court, confronting the question of whether same are constitutionally permissible, must assess the views of those who drafted the 14th Amendment, to assess whether, by "equal protection", they meant to preclude some or all governmental distinctions based upon race. The Justices’ own views on the costs or benefits should make no difference whatsoever. They're not paid to substitute their policy preferences for those of legislators.

Justices must routinely make decisions, despite their disagreement with the underlying policy. If they can’t, they have no business serving on the bench.

Take, for instance, New Jersey’s foolish domestic partnership law. I voted against it as a legislator; were I a judge, what basis would exist for striking it down? Ditto Lawrence, the homosexual sodomy case decided by the US Supreme Court; as a legislator, I’d vote against virtually any governmental regulation of private sexual conduct, but nothing in the constitution precludes government from doing so.

Simply put, there is one – and only one – legitimate method of constitutional interpretation: fealty to the intention of the Framers. Anything else constitutes nothing less than an act of will, not judgment, and such an act exceeds the legitimate scope of a judge’s authority.

Justice Roberts

The joke circulating about one of President Bush’s potential Supreme Court nominees holds that "Gonzales" is Spanish for "Souter". This caused consternation among advocates of a judiciary which pays attention to the Constitution rather than setting itself up as a super legislature. As it should. New Jersey residents know only too well the baleful results of an arrogant, irresponsible, out of control judiciary: high property taxes, uncontrolled sprawl, illegal redistricting, illegal borrowing.

President Bush's nominee for the US Supreme Court John Roberts appears to be something of a cipher, too. Here’s hoping that the Bush chooses better than his father. (‘Course, Bush, Sr., DID appoint Clarence Thomas, one of the two acknowledged stars on the Court)

Roberts may prove a brilliant choice. Confirmed by the Senate just two years ago sans filibuster, it will prove difficult for any of the Democratic dilettantes to argue that he’s "too extreme". And, in that short period of time, he’s had little opportunity to truly tick anyone off. Too, anyone who so irks Alliance for Justice merits the benefit of the doubt.

Already, of course, the liberal media attaches the "conservative" label to this nominee. While the media most certainly IS liberal, words like "conservative" and "liberal" lack much in the way of descriptive power when applied to judges. Those terms connote a political philosophy and, done right, judging involves no such activity.

Examples abound. Some years back, Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in a case which invalidated, on Fourth Amendment grounds, the use by the police of thermal imagers to track down marijuana growers. It’s possible, I suppose, that Scalia supports marijuana growers. More likely, he simply went where the text and history of the Constitution compelled him to go.

Political liberals care only about results and, as far as concerns the federal judiciary, primarily about abortion. Any serious student of the Constitution who reads the opinion in Roe (or its progenitor, Griswold, of "penumbras and emanations" infamy) without sighing in disbelief simply isn’t paying attention. Or, by definition, isn’t serious. Nothing therein points to so much as a sentence in the document which supports the conclusion at which the Court arrived. The Court simply annunciated abortion on demand as a desirable policy outcome (at least insofar as seven old men were concerned) and constitutionalized that policy on a whim.

Whether one believes abortion to be mortal sin or sacrament, honesty compels that conclusion that such a "right" utterly lacks even a hint of constitutional support. No judge who could attach his/her name to the opinion in Roe is qualified to sit on any court.

Perhaps, twenty years hence, when abortion has been evicted from the constitution, judicial confirmation hearings will, once again, turn on the issues of whether a judge agrees to be bound to the text and history of the document presented for interpretation.

I’ll wager that neither "side" will find Roberts so objectionable as to warrant more than a bit of hyperventilating by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer. The best we, as a nation, can hope for is that in Judge Roberts, President Bush has found a judge who understands the job description.

School Follies

If one wishes to know why property taxes are so high here in New Jersey, one need only recall the extravagance of the Trenton Democrats. Consider (July 19, 2005) post, commenting on the $136 million Taj Mahal being built on your nickel in Union City.

Union City pays less than 10% of the costs of running its own schools – and them’s only the dishonest, "official" figures, which don’t include the costs of the bonds we sold for the schools we built for them.

Today’s Ledger reports that local officials in South Jersey are, unsurprisingly, terrified at the prospect that Abbott funding might be curtailed and that they, themselves, might be actually asked to pay for their own schools.

Horrors. Imagine if the state stops permitting one town to sponge off its neighbors. Whatever shall we do?

We like to moan about high property taxes, but without some method of check-mating the redistributionist impulses of the Trenton Democrats, far better to live with property taxes than income taxes. Every nickel of the property taxes a Denville resident pays gets spent in Denville. Any mis-named "property tax reform" which directs money to Trenton rather than to Denville will inevitably result in the money being spent on white elephants in Camden, not used for schools and services in Denville.

Repealing Abbott outright and redistributing aid among all children equally – every kid in the state gets precisely the same amount of money, to be used for such education as his parents think appropriate – will reduce property taxes, advance freedom, and improve education.

Rebate Baloney

I received my NJ FAIR application in the mail today. (Any governmental program with the word "Fair" in it almost certainly isn't.)

Now, I confess that rebates were, in part, a Republican idea. But it is the genius of the Democrats that when the Republicans concoct a really bad idea, the Democrats adopt it and make it exponentially worse.

Rebates exist less for valid policy reasons that for the fact that politicians love to be able to brag to their constituents about checks which – surprise – happen to arrive in the mailbox just before election day. Alright, let’s go further: there exist precisely no valid policy reasons to offer rebates.

Rebates are costly. This form did not get printed, handled or mailed for free. It will not be returned or processed for free. Assuming that checks actually issue, each one of them will cost money to print, mail, and process. Millions of dollars better spent on other things, wasted so that politicians can make a campaign pitch with public dollars.

When this matter came on for discussion, during my first term, I dissented from the Administration’s rebate proposal on the grounds that it – yet again – provided a windfall to the cities and shafted the suburbs. As the formula considered a home’s assessment rather than the quantum of taxes paid, a disproportionate share of the rebates went to people who live in relatively inexpensive housing. Camden residents received something like 90% of their school tax assessments back via rebates; Harding residents received something like 6%.

I suggested that if a 33% school tax offset was the goal, simply provide every homeowner with a refundable income tax credit for 33% of his/her school tax payments. EVERYONE would receive precisely the same percentage tax cut, and urban residents would no longer have their hands in suburban pockets.

‘Course, it suffered from the "defect" of not producing a check to the voters. I thought that an advantage; my colleagues disagreed.

Rebates, though, on the budget, look like spending. Hence, the Democrats were able to "reduce spending" this year through the simple expedient of a rebate cut. (Their "FAIR" promise – that the receipts of the mis-named "millionaires’ tax" would fund rebates – having been conveniently forgotten) Had my suggestions been accepted, the Dems would have been (further) revealed as the unambiguous tax-increasers they are (as if any doubt really remained after the mega-tax increases over the past four years).

Comes now, Jon Corzine. As I said, the Republicans never crafted an idea so bad that a Democrat couldn’t make it worse. Corzine proposes to increase rebates by making "specific spending cuts" (which he fails to specify). Curiously, he asserts that he will not increase other state taxes to increase rebates (where was he when we needed him last year? I don’t remember any broadsides condemning the Democrats for their massive tax increases and outrageous 17% spending increases. Perhaps I missed them.) But, then again, Florio and McGreevey both promised tax cuts before their elections...

Rebates, Corzine avers, are guaranteed to grow 10% per annum (just like the funds from the Democrats’ massive tax increases last year would fund increased rebates, right?) But, as we have seen, rebates are silly ideas. And given that most people in suburban districts are disproportionately shafted by rebates, while folks in urban areas unreasonably benefit, across the board increases merely freeze in the existing inequities.

Rebates should be abolished, not increased, and state taxes cut, dollar for dollar. Why take from one pocket to put it back in another?

The only real solution to outrageous property taxes lies in cutting spending and a fairer distribution of existing state aid.

A Brief Pause

A brief pause while your humble correspondent reads "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" and attends a Civil War living history in Hamilton Township...

Transportation Woes

Recently, yet another committee issued yet another report on the subject of the Transportation Trust Fund. It bears comment.

First, the facts: the TTF is essentially broke. It went bankrupt by design. Although originally designed – wisely – as a "pay as you go" program, under which gasoline tax money would be employed to fund transportation construction and improvement, some rocket scientist figured out that if government borrowed against the tax receipts, it could spend loads more this year than the tax receipts themselves could support, thereby making contractors and union workers happy.

Of course, sooner rather than later, the interest payments on the bonds sold consumed the entirety of the TTF, producing a "crisis". Without new funds, transportation spending would cease. Horrors.

Then-Governor Whitman proposed a gas tax increase to fund the program anew. A small cadre of conservatives in the Assembly publicly and noisily rebelled. At that time, we proposed – in lieu of any tax increase -- that the balance of the gas tax (about 1 penny) then going into the general fund be dedicated to the TTF; that an another petroleum tax be similarly dedicated; and that all borrowing cease. For good measure, we proposed that some portion of the existing sales tax be dedicated to the TTF and that the sale tax itself be cut by a penny.

That would PERMANENTLY solve the problem but it suffered from one minor defect: it would require fiscal discipline. As with any proposal which insists upon responsibility, it died a lonely death.

Later, some of the political power brokers accepted some of the suggestions, such as dedicating the full gas tax and the petroleum products tax to the TTF. That provided a quick fix, but as we still used the fund to borrow, it simply postponed the day of reckoning.

Which has now arrived.

Demonstrating courage befitting a representative of the people, the Acting Governor simply postponed any discussion of the TTF – and a huge gas tax increase – until after the November election. Can’t have Democrats in the Assembly asked to vote on a major tax increase BEFORE they seek re-election, can we?

Given that transportation infrastructure cannot be ignored, and the fact that governmental irresponsibility bankrupted the TTF, it serves no particular purpose to bemoan lost opportunities for fiscal responsibility, except as an admonition against future folly. What solution should we pursue?

Government requires representatives not simply to claim to make difficult choices, but to actually make them. Given that funds are not unlimited, it behooves governmental officials to prioritize their spending. We can fix the TTF problem without increasing taxes, but it requires cuts elsewhere. Accepting the inevitable challenge to identify same, let me offer the following relatively easy targets:

• The Dept. of Education contends that many of the existing Abbott districts should be decertified, as they no longer require the same level of state aid. Do it. The estimated savings: $400 million. Use that money for the TTF.
• Cut aid to Newark by the cost of the arena they intend to build with public funds: savings, $200 million, plus. Use that money for the TTF;

While $600 million ought to be more than sufficient for next year’s transportation projects, there are many more relatively easy targets:

• The legislature just voted to spend between $35 and $70 million on "near Abbott" districts (interestingly represented exclusively be Democrats). Repeal that gift; use the money for the TTF.
• Immediately after the budget was adopted, an additional $37 million was doled out in aid to Camden, on top of the hundred million plus already doled out. Repeal that grant; use the money for the TTF.
• The Governor proposes $150 million plus for a new stem cell institute. Even were the idea a good one, if the choice is between deteriorating bridges, decrepit trains, and impassable highways, and such an institute, attending to these existing obligations should come first.
• The budget contained some $200 million or so in special pork projects, mostly in Democratic districts. However wonderful these programs might be, one must choose between those discretionary items and the necessity of transportation spending.

Oh, and ABSOLUTELY PROHIBIT any new borrowing.

The point being that we have more than sufficient revenues flowing into government. The Democrats increased taxes – on top of the already obscene baseline from a scant four years ago – by $2000 per family. The Trenton Democrats borrowed and taxed at astonishing levels, bloating spending by 20% in two short years. We don’t need higher taxes on anything; we need to be more careful about where we spend the money.

And Off We Go ...

The difficulty presented by commencing a blog is the commitment: does one really wish to hold forth on matters political on a daily – or, at least, very regular – basis? Besides, in politics, anything one says can and will be taken out of context and used against you in the next election. Most incumbents prefer to run under the radar, as it were, providing as few targets of opportunity for their opponents as possible. And, then, only those poll-tested opinions scrubbed by advisors and focus groups, usually so vague and platitudinous as to be virtually devoid of content, ever see the light of day.

The difficulty with that, of course, is that an electorate ignorant of its representatives’ positions cannot render an informed decision at the polls. A democracy’s survival depends upon the ability of an educated electorate to render informed decisions.

Hence, this effort. As with the political commentary which appears on my website and, occasionally, in the press, I intend herein to remark upon those issues facing those of us privileged to serve in the Legislature and, perhaps, to provide an "insider’s" window into the process.

But, no satisfactory conversation can ever be wholly one sided, and no representative worthy of that title simply bloviates, heedless of the responses of his audience. One of the huge difficulties we, as a people, confront, lies in the unwillingness of the populace to engage their representatives and the reciprocal reluctance of those representatives to offer unscripted responses. Too few people involve themselves in politics and fewer still make any effort to communicate their thoughts, desires, and opinions to those elected to represent them. And, perhaps, too few of said "representatives" devote sufficient attention to the opinions of their constituents, contributing to the generalized feeling that one voice cannot make a difference.

I flatter myself that I am somewhat atypical among my colleagues, in that I make every effort to avoid being "politic". I like to answer my mail – especially my E-mails – personally and individually. (Although, as with anything else, if one receives a canned communication, one tends to send a canned response) I dislike Clintonian non-responses to specific inquiries and eschew polite "I will take your feelings under consideration" answers to communications. Sometimes, this ruffles feathers; it can be taken as insufficiently "sensitive". So, let me get my apologies out of the way on the upfront: if you ask a question, you’ll get an answer. Usually bluntly. If you’re looking for a diplomat, you’ve come to the wrong place. One should ALWAYS be polite, but, also, plain spoken. A communicant should come away from any conversation with a legislator without the slightest doubt where that lawmaker stands.

And, so, off we go.