Honesty and Integrity

For years, Goo Goos ("good government" groups for the uninitiated) have sought to clean up electoral campaigns. Some of these efforts produce silliness, like the so called "clean elections" program recently adopted here in New Jersey for some Assembly districts. Misguided efforts to remove the power of money from politics – that will happen only when government stops being so lucrative for certain constituencies – are destined to fail, inevitably produce unintended consequences, and strike against freedom.

But other efforts – those directed toward trying to make campaigns more informative – merit a more sympathetic hearing. These efforts are ALWAYS voluntary; the groups urge candidates to actually provide information to the electorate and to debate issues fairly. In other words, to foreswear heat in favor of light.

Given the nature of the political arena, these efforts, too, are destined to fail. Candidates without much of substance to say resort to the "politics of personal destruction", as the master of that black art – the Clinton Administration – lamented. Candidates without a message, without ideas, without experience, etc., can at least do their best to muddy the waters by insulting their adversaries. And how else would campaign hacks make their money?

Naively, your humble narrator always believed that politics ought to be about the clash of ideas. On a particular issue, candidate A takes a particular position and explains her rationale, while candidate B, respectfully, but forcefully, disagrees, explaining the basis for his view. ‘Course, that almost NEVER happens. Perhaps it’s the fault of the people for not insisting on better from their candidates. But, certainly, the candidates themselves shoulder most of the blame, for debasing their calling by stooping to unethical tactics, calling names, casting aspersions, etc.

I confess to a certain reluctance to legally mandate "ethics". A candidate, and an office holder, should simply not do certain things, and the electorate should wreak electoral revenge on a person who crosses the line. A candidate who perverts the process by engaging in ad hominem attacks, who refuses to forthrightly debate an issue or reveal a position, or who employs patently unethical tactics – push polls come readily to mind – deserves the opprobrium of the electorate.

The campaign ethics provisions Goo Goos propose are all pretty much the same. As the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center notes, they involve simple matters, such as:

"... candidates pledge to avoid practices such as push polling, personal attacks, stereotyping and false advertising. They also agree to publicly repudiate such practices when they are used by third parties on behalf of their campaigns."

Push polling is considered particularly sleazy; every ethical campaign abjures their use. As one website notes:

"Push polls are considered to be unethical to the point that the professional polling associations outright condemn them and even have hotlines to call if you learn about a push poll."

That site? Southern Illinois Democrats.

It’s nice to see that some Democrats have ethics.

As the gentle reader may have gathered, your humble narrator – and his running mate – is the subject of precisely such a "push poll" by the local Democrats. This from a candidate who just issued a press release under the heading: "Expecting Honesty. Anticipating Integrity."

If this sleazy campaign tactic demonstrates the Democrats’ view of "honesty and integrity", perhaps they should invest in a better thesaurus. And an campaign ethics primer.

Pork, the Military, and the Democrats

A constituent recently noted a letter to a local paper castigating your humble narrator for a vote cast against a resolution urging that no New Jersey military bases be closed. This, the letter writer observed, constituted a refusal to defend Picatinny Arsenal against the possibility of closure.

Let’s be clear: the military is NOT a jobs program, NOT an economic development program, and should NOT be treated as simply another opportunity for political pork. The economic impact of a base closing upon a particular state or locality should count for precisely nothing when the military assesses whether to retain same. The sole and exclusive determination in arriving at such decisions ought to be whether the base provides an essential component of military preparedness. And THAT decision ought to be left to the experts, not self serving politicians.

It simply will not do to have local politicians second guessing military decisions, PROVIDED that such decisions were not made on political grounds in the first place. Such constituted the rationale for creating the Base Closing Commission (BRAC) in the first instance: powerful legislators would ALWAYS look out for their local economic interest, with the result that duplicative, unnecessary, and expensive bases would never be closed. The Commission assesses only military necessity, which is as it should be.

The Pentagon estimates that this latest round of base closings will save some $50 billion over the next ten years. That money is much better spent on tanks, planes, bullets and soldiers’ pay – or, if militarily unnecessary, on tax cuts – than on unnecessary bases.

Alas, far too many politicians – and the Democrats here in New Jersey in particular – let petty local concerns and an appetite for pork, trump military necessity and security. For instance, more than 90% of all homeland security funds here in New Jersey got pumped into such high profile terrorist targets as Camden County. Clearly, as between bringing home the bacon, and protecting the public, Democrats opt for the former.

Harsh? Perhaps. But at what other conclusion can the public possibly arrive based upon the gross disparity of security spending?

And, apparently, local Democrats feel the same way about military spending. When compelled to chose between a strong military, employing facilities efficiently according to legitimate military necessity – and pork – the Dems come out strongly in favor of pork. If it costs $50 billion, who cares? As long as local pork isn’t curtailed.

As it happens, Picatinny survived – and prospered – on its own merits. Some 700 new jobs will move to the facility as a result of facilities closures elsewhere. Had the local Dems gotten their way, other jurisdictions would have fought to retain these positions, to the great detriment of the military, of Morris County, and of the taxpayers. My vote to permit the process to proceed (as if there were anything a Member of the General Assembly could do about a federal commission anyway) turned out to be precisely correct, both for the Country and for the County.

Pork before principle; pork before security; and, most definitely, pork before the taxpayer. These, apparently, are the mantras of New Jersey Democrats.

Military – and security – decisions ought to be made upon the merits alone, without respect to politics. I cast the correct vote, and would cast it again.

Privacy Concerns

The Times, and the rest of the Angry Left, continues to obsess about the possibility that, under the Patriot Act, the government might – horrors – seek to discover one’s reading list at the local bookstore or library.

Now, information being power, permitting government to secure or maintain volumes of information on the populace is somewhat problematic. Certainly, while government may legitimately maintain such information on people as they voluntarily place into the public domain, when it possesses good reason for doing so, we should be cautious about governmental efforts to amass dossiers on otherwise unoffending members of the public.

That having been said, the same folks who fear for our liberty if our library records are disclosed display absolutely no concern whatsoever about many more intrusive governmental information demands. Primary among these, of course, is the requirement that we all file comprehensive financial statements with the government every year. But consider other aspects of our life – such as firearms ownership – about which the left entertains no reservations whatsoever about governmental possession of information.

Put simply, if government ever becomes so tyrannical as to threaten our basic liberties, is a list of library patrons, or a list of gun owners, likely to attract the most governmental interest?

And if so-called "privacy advocates" were serious, they’d be much more offended by the huge intrusion into individual privacy required by the income tax than by the insignificant -- and wholly hypothetical -- encroachment involved in governmental discovery of the occasional reading list. I’ll be delighted to disclose my subscription to the "Library of America" series in exchange for keeping my income confidential.

Look for the Union Lable

So, the NJEA refuses to endorse precisely one incumbent legislator. Lessee, who might that someone might be?

Let us consider some of the NJEA positions, to determine whether the support of that esteemed organization is worth having.

Naturally, the NJEA opposes vouchers – can’t have parents permitted to choose where to send their kids. It uses the words "free market" as an epithet. And it points out that only 38% of all schools with space charge less than $2000 per year.

$2000?!? That’s about 1/10th to 1/12th what we’re spending in places like Newark and Paterson, when the true costs are calculated. Imagine: educating 10 kids on what it costs to (mis)educate one today. We most certainly can’t have that.

The Union contends that in areas in which vouchers have been tried, student achievement has not improved. Assume that’s accurate. That means that private schools perform no worse than public schools, at a tiny fraction of the cost; what’s not to love?

And consider some of the NJEA’s proudest accomplishments, things about which it BOASTS.

"In 2003 NJEA helped create the Fairness Alliance which began organizing around aking the New Jersey income tax more progressive by increasing the rate for millionaires. After less than 18 months of existence, the Fairness Alliance was a principal player in enactment of Chapter 40, P.L. 2004 which, for the first time in a decade, raised the income tax on New Jerseyans making more than $500,000 a year. Unfortunately, the $800,000,000 in revenue generated by Chapter 40 was used to increase rebates for homeowners and renters."

The Union BRAGS about a huge tax increase, then laments that the only marginally legitimate basis for the tax grab – giving money back to property tax payers; the rationale that the Democrats used to sell the Bill – is "unfortunate". Can’t have money going back to the taxpayers. (The Union should be delighted with this year’s budget, which kept the tax increase but slashed the promised rebates.)

The Union cheers the addition of yet another school district to the Abbott boondoggle, which will cost state taxpayers untold tens of millions (which might otherwise remain in Morris County). If a single spending initiative or tax increase proposal failed to garner NJEA support, it’s not patent. The Union opposes I and R, demonstrating a continuing distrust of the poor, benighted voters. It opposes money saving measures such as privatization and subcontracting.

In short, the worse a proposal, the more likely it is to garner the Union’s support. Conversely, the better a proposal, the more it advances freedom, the more likely will it earn the antipathy of the Union.

Now, these poor public policy positions result not because the Union is evil, but because it’s a union, with one – and only one – mission: maximizing the income and benefits its members receive. The Union subordinates every other consideration to these goals, including education. The Union avers that its interests and those of the children converge but, clearly, the needs of the children – let alone those of the taxpayer – are subordinated to the economic interests of teachers. That’s entirely understandable; that’s what unions do.

But it’s rotten policy. The goal of education policy ought to be to secure the best possible education for the most number of children at the lowest possible cost. While such a goal is anathema to the Union, it ought to be paramount in the minds of those who serve the taxpayers.

Parks and Pork

Today, the Governor signed several bills providing hundreds of millions for "open space" preservation projects. But two of them merit special consideration: first, S-2640, provided – at the time the Legislature approved it – for $65.822 million in spending in cities. The other, S-2632, provided $15 million for land preservation in the Highlands region. What’s wrong with this picture?

S-2640 contains a list of projects to be undertaken in "‘urban aid’ densely or highly populated" municipalities. It includes such highlights as $800,000 for the Hackensack High School Athletic Fields, $500,000 for playground improvements in Irvington, $800,000 for a school stadium complex at Woodbury High School, $250,000 for rehabilitation of an observatory tower in Paterson, etc. I highlight these not because they are egregious, but just because they are funded. Many other parks, walkways, and the like, received similar grants.

A quick perusal of the list reveals that these projects, while perhaps worthy local expenditures, serve no state purpose. And the appropriation for "urban" areas was as large as the open space preservation budget for the rest of the state, combined.

‘Course, every legislator – but one – voted for this proposal; one must, after all, choose one’s battles.

But it seems to that one legislator that the state’s priorities are more than a tad askew.

A paltry $15 million for farmland preservation in the highlands? In Montville alone, one substantial tract was worth – before the Highlands law devalued it by 98% or so – about $100 million. While we’re spending $66 million playing around with Little League ballfields in Maywood and a skateboard park in Kearny, the land which assertedly supplies half the state with its drinking water rates peanuts.

Governing requires making choices. This urban "open space" initiative constitutes nothing more than pork, the same sort of pork which beset the homeland security and Christmas Tree programs. It takes no rocket scientist to glean that the vast majority of these funds are being spent in Democratic districts. Given the choice between spending scarce resources to protect threatened open spaces, upon which fully half of the state’s population allegedly depends for its drinking water, and making improvements to the 47th Street Pool in Union City, for which do you think the Democratic leadership opted?

Taking Pork off the Menu

I read with increasing amusement at the "scandal" over homeland security funds here in New Jersey being funneled almost exclusively to Democratic districts. The reason for my amusement? The fact that it’s news. Is ANYONE surprised that the Dems funnel funds to themselves?

Why the media outrage? Perhaps because the money allegedly served "homeland security" purposes? Perhaps the implication that only Democrats need – or deserve – protection from terrorist threats? Perhaps the fact that the Dems seemed embarrassed that they treated this money in precisely the same manner as they treated every other governmental program: as pork?

Let’s be clear: TAKING MONEY FROM REPUBLICANS AND GIVING IT TO DEMOCRATS IS WHAT DEMOCRATS DO. Always have done, always will do. Democrats see government as nothing more than a vast engine to take money from people who don’t vote for them and give it to people who do, while taking out a percentage to fatten their own wallets. They’re sometimes proficient at masquerading that fact, but the results speak for themselves.

Every time a school opens in an Abbott district, the three Democratic legislators will be there congratulating themselves on how much money they brought to the district, paid for by people they don’t represent in Morris County. Consider the fraudulent talking points on the budget, about how it provided something like $12 billion in property tax relief. Right. If you live in Newark or Camden, and might otherwise have to pay for all the goodies showered upon you, you’ve received "property tax relief". But not if you live anywhere else. And CERTAINLY not if you live somewhere with the temerity to vote for Republicans.

Now, admittedly, the Dems are not alone in playing the pork barrel game. The most recent transportation bill passed by Congress constitutes an egregious example of bi-partisan piggery. But the GOP is usually content to let everyone play. Kean and Whitman poured substantially more money into Dem districts than into GOP districts, because they believed (usually incorrectly, but that’s another matter) that it was the right thing to do. The Dems, being unencumbered by principles or restrained by old fashioned concepts like shame or honesty, don’t even bother with the fig leaf of bi-partisanship. To them, government simply means feeding your own; it probably amuses the Dems no end that the GOP chooses not to reciprocate when they win.

But it’s folly simply to point out the that Democrats are acting like Democrats always do, without proposing a solution. The mistake Kean and Whitman – especially the latter – made when they won power and controlled the Legislature, lay in failing to enact fundamental, structural reform which would have prevented this from happening again.

The solution to the problem of pork spending lies in adopting a constitutional provision insisting upon kosher diet rules. Simply put, pork would be off the menu. The State would be barred from giving any municipality any money whatsoever. No municipal buildings, senior centers, bike paths, fire trucks, etc., unless the town is willing to pay the freight itself.

Consider:

"The Legislature shall expend no funds whatsoever on account of any local or county responsibility; all expenditures by the Legislature shall be for state purposes. No State funds may be transferred to any municipality or County, or any agency or subdivision thereof."

Problem solved. No legislator would be constitutionally permitted to "bring home the bacon"; pork is simply off the menu.

Outrage, properly channeled, can work wonders. The Dems treated "homeland security" funds in exactly the same manner as they treat the budget generally: a method of rewarding their friends. Doing so with funds assertedly earmarked for societal preservation leaves a bad odor. Perhaps, their crassness will produce real reform.

But if their response to this latest outrage mirros their response on ethics, election reform, and the like, don’t hold your breath.

The More Things Change ...

Back from a busy, relatively non-political week, the sprit took me to do a little bookcase cleaning; purge scarce shelf space of some titles less worthy of occupying it. And such activities always stimulate a few thoughts, especially when I get to the "trendy political" section of the library.

This time, I found a wonderful volume, a book by Mark Green, entitled "Winning Back America", copyright 1982. At once, a true time capsule and a reflection on politics today. Cover blurbs from Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Ed Asner, Tip O’Neill, and the like. "A powerful indictment of the Reagan program ..." A demonstration of "... how to make enduring progressive values relevant to the 1980s ..." A guide to moving America out of the "... seventeenth century politics now governing Washington."

Sound familiar? Fast forward to 2005 and we find the same sorry cast of characters STILL writing the same books. "What’s Wrong with Kansas?", a tract dedicated to the proposition that folks in the heartland, if they understood their own self interests, would vote for Democrats. "Don’t Think of an Elephant", a similar tome dedicated to the proposition that if liberals would only make themselves clear, they would prevail.

After each election in which they get spanked, the Dems bemoan the fact that their candidate simply didn’t articulate their self-evidently marvelous views strongly enough. Or, alternatively – and, seemingly, paradoxically – the candidate spoke the right words, but the American people are simply too stupid to comprehend there own self interests. Consider this letter to the New York Times today:

"The Democrats' presidential candidate in 2004, John Kerry, adhered to Jim Wallis's policy prescription closely. Senator Kerry opposed tax policies that favor the rich over the poor, championed strong environmental protection and offered more credible international leadership than his opponent. Voters ignored this.
"Although writers and political pundits never tire of deriding the Democratic Party for its failure in 2004, it is for some reason verboten to place the blame where it properly belongs: the American people."

Blame? How ‘bout THE CREDIT?!?

In 1972, George McGovern completed the transformation of the Democratic Party into a European-style social-democratic party, one which rejects virtually all of the notions underlying our founding. To its apparently perpetual puzzlement, the Party routinely gets creamed. How many times does one hear a Dem complain that the US "... is the only western country in the world ..." with (or without) – fill in the blank with the appropriate socialist program or diminution in freedom. It never seems to occur to these benighted folks that it is precisely the absence of some program, or the presence of some freedom, which makes America uniquely desirable.

A fair number of people – at least for the time being, a majority – believe in freedom and reject the Dems’ compulsory social and economic policies. These folks disapprove of the Dems’ beggar-thy-neighbor tax policy – even if they might hypothetically benefit in the short term. (Consider the overwhelming opposition to the death tax) Such policies, they conclude, constitute neither good economic policy, nor a "fair" system of taxation. Give the voters credit: they might actually have looked at Europe, in which all of these lovely policies have been tried, and recoiled in horror at the results.

There may yet come a time when the people conclude that freedom simply can’t work, that they’d be better off with an even more gargantuan government, hugely higher taxes, massively increased spending, a bloated, overpaid bureaucracy, and ever more stringent, repressive regulations.

If the people really liked that sort of policy, they need not move to Sweden, they need only relocate to New Jersey. But given that New Jersey’s growth – and that of other reliably red states – pales in comparison to their more freedom loving counterparts – the Journal reported that 1,000 people a day leave red states for blue states – it appears that the people are voting for freedom with their feet as well as at the ballot box.

I decided to retain Mr. Green’s volume. If trends continue, it will be every bit as timely in 2020 as it was in 1980 and is today. The Dems will still be carping that the people don’t get it, never entertaining the possibility that it might be the other way around.

Tax Follies

The Daily Record reported Sunday on a study being undertaken along the western borders of NJ. Seems that PA real estate prices -- although still a fraction of the NJ costs -- are rising rapidly as ever more NJ residents claim refugee status. Traffic flow from PA to NJ is expanding markedly and projected to increase substantially in years ahead. Although not specifically addressed in the context of the story, one might ask: why are all these folks heading to PA, when they work in NJ or NY?

Obviously, housing costs account for a good deal of the answer. The report points out that a nice house on an acre of land can be had in many nice areas of PA for 2/3rds the cost of a median Morris County house.

But nice housing for a couple with a $100000 annual income can be found in and around Morris County, let alone Hunterdon, Warren, and Sussex. What other factors might account for the PA real estate explosion?

Consistently, the people asked reply: "taxes".

The PA income tax is one third (or less) than ours, and the folks in Harrisburg have not yet mastered that politics of envy which leads to absurdities like the so-called "millionaires’ tax", which punishes success. Apparently, the PA Supreme Court lacks the arrogance of our example; no decisions like Mount Laurel or Abbott v. Burke drive PA property taxes into the stratosphere. ‘Course, if you value freedom, PA lets you buy a gun with a drivers’ license and carry what you buy. Despite being about 5 times bigger in area and boasting a population half again as large, they somehow manage to get by on a budget which is about $4 billion less. Their roads seem in wonderful repair; they haven’t borrowed themselves into bankruptcy; their schools don’t seem to be falling apart. And although Philly ain’t no paragon of virtue, it doesn’t appear that a substantial percentage of the state’s Democrats are serving time.

The Wall Street Journal reports that, over the last 20 years, some 1000 people PER DAY have fled the high tax northeast for greener, less taxing pastures elsewhere. Other reports demonstrate that high income seniors change their domicile to avoid confiscatory state death taxes, such as that imposed here in NJ. Already, one in four NJ pension dollars get mailed to recipients out of state. If PA ever wises up and abandons the death tax, no one with a reportable income will live in, let alone die in, New Jersey.

Jon Corzine likes to speak about an "affordable" New Jersey, but every single one of his proposal will render the state less affordable for the taxpayers, who labor under a massive governmental burden. If Corzine wants to make the state more "affordable", he should propose the complete repeal of the massive tax increases with which his Democratic buddies saddled the overburdened taxpayers, and the elimination of the spending they support.