Unusual Honesty from Government

Consider the recent, enlightening transition report offered to Governor Corzine on agricultural policy. Here, one finds a rare display of honesty respecting the impacts of the muddle headed policies adopted by the State over the course of the past four years.

Start with the minimum wage. The report notes that "... many farm employers will struggle to cope with the multiple, adverse impacts of these legislated mandates". Say, what? "Adverse impacts" upon employers from a minimum wage increase? Don’t the Jon Shure’s of the world repeatedly ashure us that minimum wage increases have no "adverse impacts"? That they don't cost jobs? That they don't cause businesses to fold?

Reverting to typical liberal-speak, the report recommends a governmental subsidy in order to sustain "agricultural viability". Given the harm done to the farming sector by increases in the minimum wage, the report recommends that the state spend $10-12 million subsidizing the farmers who must pay those increased wages.

This is almost a caricature. Conservatives have long asserted that the Democratic mantra runs: "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." Having adopted a policy which will inevitably drive farmers out of business, the State now urges that these same employers be given a taxpayer subsidy to compensate for the entirely predictable results of a boneheaded law.

Good thing for the farmers that they’re a sympathetic constituency. Where are the millions in subsidies for the restauranteurs and other small businesses adversely affected by increased labor costs?

On another front, the report details the devastating effect on farmers of foolish state (and local) land preservation policies – notably, the Highlands – which strike at the value of farmland, encouraging farmers to git while the gitting is good. Consider the following language:

"It is important, if not essential, that the state administration formulate and communicate a clear and concise theme on property rights and the importance of protecting land values to the future of agriculture. This should become a common framework for all public sector agencies to use when formulating open space and land regulation policies. This theme at its core should reflect the constitutional protection against ‘takings without compensation’..."

"Property rights"? "Constitutional protection against takings without compensation"? Did a REPUBLICAN sneak onto this transition group? What, after all, are "property rights" when broader considerations, like "protecting" land, arise? And was not the entire point of the Highlands Act to effect a "taking" without actually paying for anything?

While the report details the devastating effect that such policies have upon farmers, is the impact really any less significant for others, who see the value of their property essentially destroyed, all in the interests of some alleged societal benefit? If farmers are to be protected against the economic effects of "preservation" efforts – pursuant to which society reaps a benefit, but foists the costs of same upon to a small group of property owners – why should not other property owners as well?

Rare, indeed, is it to find examples of such refreshing honesty, in which government admits that its policies produce devastating effects.

Typically, though, the report gets the solutions wrong. Instead of urging that the foolish, job destroying hike in the minimum wage be repealed FOR EVERYONE, it requests a taxpayer-funded subsidy for sympathetic employers. In effect, it urges that the taxpayers pay the wages of some private employees.

Instead of urging the repeal of property-rights-destroying legislation like the Highlands Law, the report, again, resorts to special pleading for farmers, leaving other landowners without remedy.

But the fact remains: governmental policies destroy jobs and businesses and impose special burdens on small groups. The solution lies in repealing those foolish policies, not providing subsidies to small groups of sympathetic supplicants.

MARDI GRAS TOMORROW!! Join me at the Madison Hotel in Convent Station at 6 PM for a festive evening. EM jptet@optonline.net for the details!!

So Much for Responsibility

Hizonor released his final TTF proposal today. Heavy on glitz and spiffy, color pictures. Light on substance. And utterly devoid of "reform".

Nowhere an express apology for waiting five whole weeks before breaking a major campaign promise – doing away with gimmicks, one times, and similarly irresponsible projects.

It will certainly become law, and the Democrats, presumably, will start the spin about how illegally borrowing another eight billion is, really and truly, the fiscally responsible course of action to pursue. But it’s spinach.

First, the report lists a parade of horribles which will certainly ensue absent new revenues, including "shutting down core capital functions". As noted in a previous post, that’s just plain silly. If transportation projects require more revenue, the fact that we have already borrowed ourselves into insolvency with respect to the TTF simply requires spending restraint elsewhere. We could begin, for instance, by cutting aid to Newark by the $200 million they wasted on an arena. If they have the money for that, it’s clear they don’t require state aid to the tune of more than $20,000 for each and every household.

We could go on. In a $29 billion budget – let alone one which mushroomed by approximately a third in four short years – finding efficiencies and establishing priorities should not be too difficult for a real leader.

Instead, on this, his first really big initiative, Corzine punted.

On first down.

But, let’s take him at his word. Assume that we actually do what he wants us to do, we borrow another few billion, and it tides us over for five years. Then what?

Back in PRECISELY the same position, except, now, instead of being able to work our way out of it in seven to ten years, we’re in the hole for 30.

Perhaps Corzine figures he’ll be President by then and it will be up to the next Governor to dig his way out from under this mountain of irresponsibly, likely illegally incurred debt. Or, having ridden to re-election, he will have no fear about raising the taxes necessary to underwrite still more borrowing, to keep the fund gasping along.

The essence of responsible governance requires presenting the people with clear, concise options, then explaining the rationale for making the determination at which one arrives. It’s simply outrageous to – yet again – foist the solution off onto the backs of our kids, indebting them another $6 billion – almost certainly without permitting the electorate to vote on the debt (if a referendum is planned, it’s not mentioned) – and refusing to solve the problems one was elected to address, because the responsible solution might annoy powerful constituencies.

Let’s be clear; there are essentially two options: (a) cut spending in other areas in order to increase transportation funding, or (b) increasing taxes to increase that funding. Borrowing is simply NOT an acceptable, responsible option. Indeed, if we’re diligent, pay off the existing bonds, and absolutely refuse to borrow another nickel, in a few years, the problem will begin to resolve itself, as debt repayments consume progressively less of the gas and motor fuels tax revenue. We will have "solved" the problem as adults should, without leaving it to our kids.

Although this report accurately asserts that "reform" of the TTF is required, the only "reform" it mentions is yet another mountain of debt.

Politicians – if they do their job correctly – are akin to physicians treating a patient. They're chargeed with making an accurate diagnosis and prescribing a responsible course of action to address society’s needs. A physician commits malpractice if he, to please the patient, conceals the true state of affairs, or refuses to prescribe a necessary, albeit unpleasant treatment. Just so, Governor Corzine commits political (and financial) malpractice by crafting a "solution" to a present problem, which "solution" is expressly designed to explode in five years. Such constitutes the very antithesis of responsibility and "reform".

Dr. Corzine SHOULD tell those feeding at the public trough – however desirable and beneficial their particular favored programs might be – that we can’t increase already obscene taxes and, sadly, other priorities necessitate painful cuts. He should make a list of spending proposals, adding up to about $24 billion, prioritize that spending, and lop off anything which falls below the line. If he wants suggestions, I’m available.

But he won't. And why should he? The voters don't seem to mind outrageous taxes, an Everest of debt, astronomical spending. If they did, Corzine would be a private citizen, mulling an unprecedented electoral thumping. Over the past four years, the Democrats crafted a record of shameless fiscal irresponsibility almost unparalleled in history -- outside of Washington. And, yet, the people overwhelmingly elected their gubernatorial candidate and increased their legislative majority.

Given these hard, cold facts, the people will clearly get precisely the sort of government they deserve. Taxes will skyrocket, spending will balloon, borrowing will mushroom, while the stage is set for a worse crisis tomorrow. Having voted for more of the same, that's exactly what the people are about to get.

Corzine promised to be different, but he spectacularly failed his very first test. Like McGreevey before him, it simply means that nothing he said during the campaign can be taken seriously, as he never meant it as anything more than bluster. It will a long, expensive four years.

ED Troubles

Most of what the US Supreme Court does – except when it discusses abortion – passes more or less unremarked by most members of the public. (Unless you’re sentenced to death and wish to call your Mother as a witness, this week’s decision in Oregon v. Gruzek will concern you little. And few folks are likely to run afoul of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine explained and applied in Lance v. Dennis on Monday)

A notable exception is last term’s decision in Kelo v. New London, the eminent domain case, which produced significant public interest and backlash.

Perhaps the prospect of losing one’s home because some big developer "needs" it to push a particular project just gets under people’s skin.

The decision created some interesting political alliances. Almost instantly, most of the "right wing" – long suspicious of government power in general, and the power to restrict property rights in particular – rose up, condemning the decision and urging legislation to curtail its reach. Curiously, many voices of the left – you know, those champions of "the little guy" – remained conspicuously silent. Brookings, perhaps the dean of left wing think-tankery, published a short blurb "in defense of eminent domain", calling it "... an important revitalization tool for distressed municipalities, and their residents, across the nation. The evidence can be seen in projects as varied as Baltimore's famed Inner Harbor to Lansing's Oldsmobile Park Stadium." Not one word about – or concern over – where the people who used to live there presently reside.

The Constitution prohibits taking private property except for "public use". As Justice Stevens’ majority opinion points out, Courts initially took the words "public use" as meaning precisely that, but noted that this fealty to the text "... had eroded over time .. given the diverse and always evolving needs of society". (That sort of language sends shivers down the spine of anyone who believes that the language of the Constitution actually means something) Stevens pointed out – with historic accuracy – that the power to take private property had, in fact, been delegated to purely private entities, such as railroads, without (successful) constitutional objection.

Justice Kennedy, in his concurrence, noted the long history of judicial deference to legislative authority in such cases when any the taking is "rationally related to a conceivable public purpose". While the Court’s deference to the Legislature is refreshing – would that they accorded the same deference in abortion cases – note the slight of hand: "public purpose" is NOT the same as "public use". Judges, wishing to arrive at a particular result, often substitute close synonyms for the actual language of the document they purport to construe. They call this a "living constitution".

The question raised in Kelo presents no problem for an originalist Justice. Justice (emeritus) O’Connor – displaying her somewhat quirky fidelity to the language of the Constitution – concluded that a law which takes property from A and give it to B, allegedly for the "public benefit", eviscerates the language of the Takings Clause. Justice Thomas, as he so often does, wrote sagely:

"Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful. If ever there were justification for intrusive judicial review of constitutional provisions that protect "discrete and insular minorities,"surely that principle would apply with great force to the powerless groups and individuals the Public Use Clause protects. "

Here in New Jersey, we witness precisely that. In Long Branch, for instance, perfectly serviceable homes are declared "blighted" so that land may be seized and developed for high end housing. In Newark, whole blocks are to be taken, with dozens if not hundreds of homes and businesses destroyed, to provide for "redevelopment". The common thread: relatively poor people get evicted; rich folks reap a windfall.

One can understand why municipal officials – and anyone living in a neighborhood of the municipality other than that being bulldozed – love this power. New businesses, and rich residents, pay higher taxes, might create new jobs, etc. Quite possibly, everyone other than those people unceremoniously evicted from their homes and businesses stands to benefit.

But the glorious thing about the Constitution is that it protects us from majority tyranny. However well-intentioned these municipal officials might be, if redevelopment is to be undertaken in a particular area, let the developer pay the residents a price they are willing to accept. Or cut an appropriate deal. If the property owners are stubborn, and wish to stay, build around them. (Your homework assignment for today: watch Batteries Not Included, a Spielberg flick) There’s absolutely no reason why redevelopment needs to be done wholesale, with grandiose projects encompassing whole neighborhoods. It can be effected piecemeal and, if the folks living there don’t want to sell, tough beans.

The Constitution embodies the Framers’ views that property rights are fundamental to a free society. However great the asserted benefit to the public at large might be, and however pigheaded and stubborn a landowner might be, property rights simply cannot be ignored and may only be trumped by the most compelling public need, for a "public use". A better class of neighbor simply is NOT a basis for ignoring these most basic of our rights.

Even if we could depend upon the New Jersey Supreme Court to do something other than simply make up the law as it goes along, New Jersey’s Constitution EXPRESSLY authorizes precisely the sort of outrages presently being practiced. Nothing less than excising the offending constitutional language suffices. New Jersey should stand in the forefront of protecting property rights, not be – yet again – an abject example to the rest of the nation of government run amok.

About the Highlands, and the "taking" of private property without even a semblance of compensation therefor, more in a future post.

School Math

According to the figures recently bandied about in the press, it may take another $12 billion to undertake school construction in the Abbott districts alone. This on top of the $6 billion already spent.

Let’s put that into real terms that people can understand.

According to state figures, there are a total of 429 school buildings in the Abbott districts. A little bit of quick math – $18 billion divided by 429 – works out to $42 million per building.

Or, given the 335,000 kids in those schools, $54,000 for every blessed one of them.

And if we figure on an interest rate of about 5%, that’s $900,000,000 per year in interest, or $2700 per kid. Each and every year. Before buying a book, hiring a teacher, turning on the lights, heating a classroom.

Perhaps the time has come to consider vouchers. I absolutely guarantee that a voucher of $2,700 for elementary school kids would enable tens of thousands of youngsters to attend private schools. If a few thousand dollar scholarship would actually reduce the number of kids in the Abbott districts, we could save not only tens of thousands of dollars per year that presently goes toward education in governmentally owned and operated facilities, but the billions it will take to bring those facilities up to the solid gold standards upon which our black robed masters appear to insist.

If the program were hugely successful and enabled us to forego spending on just 10% of the facilities, that’s an instant savings of $1.8 billion. That would fund one heck of a lot of scholarships.

Is it not time to ask ourselves whether our ideological devotion to hugely expensive, governmentally run facilities is worth the mammoth expenditures?

Constitutional Education

Sometimes, one encounters a piece which simply needs to be disseminated without comment, as it speaks fully for itself. This is one of those occasions.

Robert George.

Two Many Houses

My Brother Merkt posted an open letter to the Speaker urging longer legislative terms. Assemblyman Merkt’s proposal calls for Senators to be elected for one six year and one four year term, with Assemblyman to serve two three year terms and one four year term. This would, the Assemblyman avers, serve the public better by ensuring against terms so short that, effectively, nothing gets done.

There’s some merit to that thought, but I respectfully disagree. Representatives SHOULD live in perpetual fear of the wrath of a provoked electorate, and act accordingly.

For instance, might the public, given another year (or more), have forgotten their anger at the legislators who foolishly supported Governor Florio’s tax increases, just as they almost forgot their anger at the Governor himself (at least vis a vis his opponent)?

One comment to the politicsnj website sagaciously notes the foolishness of having both Houses elected from the same districts. He suggests that Senate districts be twice the size of Assembly districts.

Perhaps, we might consider going even further, and discuss: do we really need a second House at all?

The bicameral legislative system arose with each House representing different constituencies. In England, the Commons and the Lords brought totally different perspectives to issues. Here, the House of Representatives represents the people of individual districts. As initially designed, the Senate represented the states qua states. In New Jersey, the Senate theoretically represented counties, the Assembly the people (although the plan was never particularly well considered)

In New York, Senate and Assembly Districts overlap, resulting in representation of different constituencies in each House. Here, however, the two Houses represent the same districts. There would seem to be little rationale for a system which represents the same folks in different bodies with essentially the same powers.

The question presented, then, is how to (a) ensure political responsiveness, (b) provide legislators with sufficient time to actually do their jobs and (c) avoid dual representation of the same interests.

I respectfully contend that by colleague’s proposal compromises (a) and ignores (c) altogether.

One possible solution: eliminate one House of the Legislature entirely.

Consider: instead of 40 districts, decrease the number to 30, each represented by three Senators. In the year directly after the census, the entire Senate stands for election. The top vote getter in each district serves for three years; the second for two; the third for one. And one third of the body is elected each year thereafter.

This offers the added advantage of reducing the number of legislators from 120 to 90.

Every year, the people would hold a referendum on legislative performance. Tied with redistricting reform (no partisan gerrymanders) and -- one of my personal favorites -- a proposal to permit every representative to get his/her bills posted for votes, whether the leaders like it or not, this would go a long way toward ensuring a truly responsive government.

If we ever have another constitutional convention – as we should – the assembled delegates might wish to reconsider the existing arrangement. (After they’re done repealing Abbott and Mt. Laurel) Different Houses considering the same proposals and representing the same constituencies makes very little sense.

File this under interesting philosophical exercises, never to be heard from again.

Tax Fraud

An important test of the new spirit of honesty and bipartisanship will shortly be presented to the New Jersey Assembly, the Democrats in the Senate having already flunked.

Some background. A few years back, the Dems decided that their repeated tax increases might sound better if they affixed some salutary purpose to the revenues thus generated. And, so, they asserted that money for snow-plowing efforts justified a new tax on tires. A recent increase in motor vehicle fees allegedly went to fund medical helicopters. And, now, Senate Democrats justify a proposed new tax on water by asserting it will go to protect environmentally sensitive lands.

One small difficulty: it’s all a bold-faced fraud.

Every nickel they’ve raised goes NOT for some particular program, but into the general fund, for use anywhere.

Recollect, for instance, when the Democrats rammed through the fraudulently named "millionaires’ tax", they promised that every single penny thus generated would go toward funding increased property tax rebates. That ironclad promise lasted about 15 minutes.

Money being fungible, there’s a certain silliness to dedicated taxes. It’s just plain idiotic to assume, for instance, that there’s no money for transportation projects simply because the last few Administrations recklessly borrowed against gas tax revenues. If the gas tax fails to yield the appropriate revenue, stop spending so much in Camden and use the money for more important purposes.

And just because a fund is "dedicated" doesn’t mean it isn’t also a fraud. The income tax, by constitutional command, must be deposited in a special fund used to decrease property taxes. Alas, the constitution doesn’t specify WHOSE property taxes will be reduced. If one lives in one of the 31 Abbott districts, one has, in fact, experienced substantial property tax relief. If they had to pay for the goodies showered on them, the residents of these municipalities would be literally taxed out of existence. But those who pay the income tax – suburbanites, mostly – receive next to no property tax relief as a result of the assault on their income. Instead, it funds other people’s schools. Suburbanites experience the unparalleled joy of paying twice; once for their own kids (their schools often receiving next to nothing) and once for those of other people’s kids.

But that’s not to say that dedicated funds can’t be good ideas. Although parchment barriers often prove insufficient to withstand the machinations of dishonest politicians, they suffice to bind their more honorable counterparts. And, if nothing else, gross fiscal mismanagement, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, might, someday, provoke the people into common sense.

We should, for instance, reconstitute the TTF, absolutely forbidding it from borrowing so much as a nickel. On a pay as you go basis, hundreds of millions per year would be available solely for transportation capital maintenance and construction, more than sufficient for the needs, if correctly administered.

Other funds, collected for particular purposes, could also be kept from the clutches of pork happy legislators. Unemployment taxes, for instance, should be segregated and used SOLELY for the purposes for which the taxes were collected, not siphoned off.

A water tax, as it happens is (apostasy alert!!) not such a bad idea, PROVIDED that it applies only to those who get their water from The Highlands, but don’t actually live there (virtually all of those who live in The Highlands already pay substantial municipal and county open space taxes). The proceeds of such a tax upon those who are presently free riders on the back of Highlands residents could be used to buy up sensitive land in The Highlands and to compensate landowners for the diminution in land values resulting from the confiscatory regulations the Highlands Act imposed.

Any attempt to justify another foray into the pocketbooks of the hard pressed taxpayers without a dedication to ensure that the money actually goes to the projects for which it is assertedly raised constitutes nothing less than fraud.

So, should this water tax proposal be posted for a vote in the Assembly, same will constitute a test of the Democrats’ honesty. Absent a constitutional dedication, it simply fattens the general fund which, if the past is any indication, simply sends pork to Democratic constituencies. Again, excuse some cynicism, but if history is our guide, the Democrats’ promises aren’t worth the paper the "millionaires’ tax" property tax rebate checks are written on. Nothing less than constitutional binders will suffice.

Economics 101

As hereinbefore noted, Governor Corzine, in his inaugural address, lamented that we are creating (relatively) low wage service jobs instead of high paying jobs. Come now the Democrats to wage war against this disparity by adopting policies designed to ensure that we won’t be creating any service sector jobs, either.

Popularly known as the Walmart bills, one such iteration can be found as S-477 .The sponsors assert that large retailers, by paying "substandard wages and benefits" create "destructive competition", forcing other employers to cut prices, thereby producing an "adverse economic impact".

In simple terms, the Democrats seek to liberate the people from the tyranny of low prices.

This proposal represents the latest effort by Big Labor to obtain through legislation that which it failed to obtain at the bargaining table.

Supporters of the bill speak in terms of helping poor, exploited Walmart workers; nothing could be further from the truth. (Of the hundreds of E-mails I received on this subject, not a one came from a Walmart employee) Nothing would please Big Labor more than if Walmart ceased to exist. Some statistics demonstrate that a local Walmart reduces prices 8%. That’s SERIOUS money to Walmart shoppers. But it presents a huge threat to high cost competition.

Consider a personal anecdote: Yesterday, Chunky Soup at Walmart cost $1.50. It’s generally about $1 more at the local Acme. For the folks who clip (bond) coupons, $1 represents a piddling sum; they can afford to shop at Kings. For the masses who clip (grocery) coupons to save a few bucks, the $20 they save shopping at Walmart makes a HUGE difference.

To unionized workers, other folks willing – nay, EAGER – to work for less presents quite a difficulty. Most folks prefer to pay $1 less per pound for hamburger, using the money for their own families, rather than put it toward a highly paid unionized worker’s family. Such is the nature of competition; high cost providers ALWAYS face the possibility that someone might undersell them. This has Big Labor worried.

In my trips to Walmart, I have yet to witness a single worker shackled to a register, menaced by the bondsman’s whip. Given the choice between $10 (or so) per hour, and $0 per hour unemployed (or whatever the competition might be paying) they choose to work at Walmart. Not one of Walmart’s customers entered under duress. The employees work there – presumably – because they want to; the customers shop there because they get the best value for their dollar.

Can’t have that, says Big Labor. It’s not fair, they contend, that Walmart doesn’t (always) pay the same wages and offer the same benefits that union members won at the bargaining table with other employers. Instead of making their case to Walmart employees – who repeatedly reject union entreaties – they take it to sympathetic legislators.

Big Labor labors under no illusions about the results of this legislation; it cripples low cost competitors (depriving many Walmart employees of their jobs. The utter lack of concern about this possibility from the advocates of the proposal speaks volumes) and raise prices for everyone. That’s precisely what the unions want: their members would benefit at the expense of the buying public and (former) Walmart employees. Having priced themselves out of the free market, Big Labor seeks legislation to ensure that the market ceases to be free.

The complete absence of compassion for those who would lose their jobs, and for the mass of people who would pay dramatically higher prices, makes perfect sense for Big Labor. Unions serve their membership, not the public. If doing so costs non-union members a great deal of money, that’s a price that Big Labor is more than willing to make you pay. It’s certainly not evil; unions exist to fatten their members’ wallets.

But Legislators don’t. This demonstrates one of the central difficulties with an activist government. Monied interests ALWAYS have greater access to legislators, and greater interest in anti-freedom, rent-seeking, big government programs. Big Labor has a huge stake in killing off the free market and preventing competition. Its membership is focused and motivated. Its PACs are well funded, its lobbyists well attuned to the campaign cycle.

So, who speaks for the little guy? Who represents the Walmart employee, whose $10 per hour job pays better than anything else he’s ever had, or may ever get? Who speaks for the masses of Walmart customers? Not the Democrats, certainly. As between the little guy – the customers struggling to get by and the workers who apply for Walmart jobs in droves – and Big Labor, the Dems side with the money guys. They KNOW that if this bill passes, hundreds if not thousands of Walmart employees will lose their jobs. The KNOW that prices will go up substantially for the "little guys" who shop at Walmart.

And they simply don’t care.

In Maryland, where the Legislature foolishly adopted this proposal, Walmart put two distribution centers on indefinite hold, costing hundreds of permanent jobs and tens of millions in construction. In Chicago, where the City Council refused to permit a Walmart, the store simply relocated over the City line, so that the jobs and tax revenues go to a neighbor. Some 25,000 people applied for roughly 350 jobs.

That particular precedent should give us pause. The Delaware makes for a poor rampart. Indeed, the only folks who would receive a concrete, long term benefit from this sort of economic kamikaze mission live (or sell real estate) in Pennsylvania, to which an ever expanding segment of the NJ population will flee to shop, work, and – perhaps – live, escaping muddle-headed policies adopted by a pandering Legislature.

And Governor Corzine’s problems will be solved: no jobs of any kind will be created – save, perhaps, those in favored industries onto which he would lavish taxpayer subsidies.

Errata. At the bottom of the Governor’s website is a small blurb proclaiming, "It’s tax season!" This portent of things to come even before the Governor’s budget address!

The Spirit of Bipartisanship

According to our Speaker, a new spirit of bi-partisanship reigns. Our Board list the other day contained more Republican-sponsored bills than were probably posted in the entirety of the last session. Nothing especially substantive, mind you, but, in the past, even the fluffy bills were sponsored by Democrats.

Perhaps one might excuse a bit of cynicism, but I’ve heard it all before.

A republican form of government depends upon representatives. And for people to make intelligent electoral choices, they need to know where their candidates stand on issues of importance. In short, for democracy to work, candidates must be asked direct questions and must answer, openly, honestly, and completely.

Constrained by old fashioned concepts, such as honesty and shame, when I campaign, I say precisely what I mean and mean precisely what I say. If the people disagree with my views strongly enough, they possess the power to replace me with someone more attuned to their philosophy.

Silly, gullible me. All too often, I assume that when a candidate – or an officeholder – makes a statement, or a vow, they can be counted upon to (a) mean what they say and (b) keep their promises.

And, so, for instance, I actually believed McGreevey when he promised not to borrow and spend, like Whitman had. And when he promised not to raise taxes. And when he promised to hold the line on spending, and bring ethics back to government, etc., etc., and so forth. When McGreevey and the Democrats imposed the fraudulently named "millionaires’ tax", I believed them when they said that every nickel raised would be devoted to property tax rebates. I really did.

Oh, well, honesty compels me; no, I didn’t. I knew what was coming. I publicly wagered – Fred Snowflack will back me up on this – that McGreevey would propose major tax increases in his first budget. An easier bet would be hard to imagine.

Except, perhaps, this one: when Governor Corzine gives his budget speech, he will report that, having reviewed and exhausted all the other options, unfortunately, in the spirit of sharing the pain, another huge tax increase will be required this year. And he will propose a budget which spends more than did the one last year, to which the Legislature – after much posturing and handwringing – will almost certainly add spending.

I mean, I would LIKE to believe that the Democrats are serious about cutting spending. But their record over the past four years is such an unmitigated disaster, such a blatant and horrible example of fiscal mismanagement and governmental malpractice, that no honest observer dares give them the benefit of the doubt.

Our newly elected Speaker, in his inaugural speech, offered that we must do ANYTHING to cut property taxes. Oh? Just last year, he and his caucus proposed a constitutional convention devoted to property taxes. Specifically excluded from the subjects the convention delegates might consider were ALL spending, Mt. Laurel, and Abbott v. Burke. That is to say, we will consider ANYTHING to cut property taxes, except those factors singularly responsible for creating the problem in the first place.

According to the Quinnipiac poll – which, as we know, is NEVER wrong – almost three out of five NJ residents prefer spending cuts (with cuts in services) to tax increases in order to solve the budget deficit. But the Democrats have just spent the last 4 years bloating the budget by an additional 30% over an already obscene baseline, all while crowing about "balanced budgets" and fiscal responsibility. (NOT ONE of these budgets has been "balanced"; every single one relied upon borrowing and gimmicks, albeit the last not as bad as the first three.) What would make anyone sanguine about this next budget, given the fiscal train wrecks of the previous four?

The point being that the words which issued forth from Democratic mouths these last four years bore absolutely no relationship to reality or the truth. With due respect to the Speaker, if they found $350 million in efficiencies and cuts last year, as he avers, they only missed the relevant target by about $4 billion. Our erstwhile acting Governor – while given media plaudits for identifying problems he himself helped create – did less than nothing to solve them and, in his waning days in office, couldn’t resist the temptation to distribute taxpayer boodle to favored groups. His defense? They were "worthy programs". But there’s no getting around it: if we’re to get our fiscal house in order, a lot of "worthy programs" will need to do without.

Let’s be clear: if one wishes to reform state spending and property taxes, one cannot spend $12000 per year per kid on Abbott pre-school. THAT’S PRE SCHOOL at a tuition 2-3 times higher than most Montessori programs. We can’t be subsidizing health insurance for people making $102,000. We can’t be spending $25K per year on urban public school kids. We can’t be pouring billions more into urban school construction. We can’t expand existing programs, or spend hundreds of millions more on an industrial policy, aka taxpayer funded stem cell centers. We need to reduce the size and scope of government.

We will need fewer workers on all levels of government, who receive 401(k)s, not defined benefit pensions. They must contribute to the costs of their health insurance. We need to repeal numerous health insurance mandates, which drive up costs. We need to recosider municipal/school aid formulae and explore money saving ideas like vouchers.

And if, as the Governor offered in his inaugural address, we want to adopt pro-growth policies which encourage companies with high paying jobs to locate here, that means repealing the tax increases on business and the "millionaires’ tax", the primary result of which has been to increase housing prices and employment opportunities in Bucks County.

So, if what the Democrats want is a bipartisan effort to reduce spending, pare government, and cut taxes, they’ve come to the right place. If, on the other hand, they simply want Republicans to join them in a fiscal suicide pact, we should respectfully – but emphatically – decline.

The (Former) Governor's New Groove

STOP THE PRESSES!!

I’m about to make an announcement, which may stun not a few people. Ready?

I AGREE WITH GOVERNOR WHITMAN!!

Well, let’s put it a little bit differently: I agree with what our erstwhile Chief Executive said during her appearance on Comedy Central (an entirely appropriate venue). The Once-Guv opined that she believes that the "core Republican values" of the Republican Party involve low taxes with controlled spending and balanced budgets, less government involvement in individual lives, respect for the individual, strong national defense, and a role for government in protecting the environment.

Fealty to these principles, she opines, provides room for moderate*, liberal and conservative Republicans in the GOP. (Since liberals reject the notion of small government, low taxes, etc., how a "liberal" could possibly share these Republican values remains unclear, but, since they don't -- neither do "moderates", as we shall see -- the point is essentially moot.)

Principles are, of course, wonderful things. And the not-Guv hits the nail, albeit (typically) somewhat askew, with her definition of GOP principles. Although I don’t think many other Republicans would aver that "governmental involvement in protecting the environment" constitutes a "core idea", the general admonition for small government, low taxes, less spending, balanced budgets, individual freedom, strong national defense, etc., are, in fact, PRECISELY those principles which differentiate the parties.

Contrariwise, the Dems believe -- passionately -- in Big Government, a huge regulatory state, confiscatory taxation, high spending, collective and/or group rights, and massive governmental involvement in everyday life. They hate property rights, distrust individual decisions, and believe that the only part of government which should be slashed is the military.

So, the once-Guv and I find ourselves on the same, principled page, yes?

Well, the devil finds itself very much in the details.

First, respecting Heronor’s oft stated lament about the GOP right wing excluding "moderates"*, it should be noted that I worked for the Guv’s 1993 election. Elected myself in 1995, I served with her until she left office in 2001. NOT ONCE did I hear the dulcet tones of her voice on the other end of the telephone. She rarely coordinated with any Legislative conservatives, seeking to work together with us on matters of mutual concern. On the rare occasion when she did, she never followed up. Upon her reelection in 1997, I wrote her a letter, suggesting that we should work together, as a Party, inter alia, to reform pensions. (Imagine where we'd be today if we acted on that advice in 1997!)

I expect a response to that letter any day now.

Giving the devil her due, during her first term, Her-Former actually cut taxes, and spending growth was somewhat restrained; not enough for my standards, mind you, but compared to these last four years, her first term shines through as a veritable beacon of fiscal sanity. She inherited a budget of $15.5 billion and, four years later, spent $17.16, a relatively stingy 10.7 increase. But, reelected, she threw restraint to the wind; spending increased by 8%, 7.7%, and 8.2% over the next three years. Carrying on this profligacy, spending by her "moderate" successor increased by another 7.5%. In eight short years, a $15.5 billion budget became $23.22, a 50% increase; inflation over that period was approximately 20%. Hardly a record of which any "fiscally responsible" Republican might brag.

At the same time, we raided dedicated funds, unconstitutionally and idiotically borrowed billions (Whitman borrowed more than any other Governor in history – until her successor), stiffed the pension funds for required contributions, and took a whole host of other magnificently asinine fiscal steps. Where, pray tell, was this vaunted "fiscal responsibility", involving "balanced budgets" and "controlled spending"? Perhaps the best that can be said of Whitman’s tenure is that she absolutely shines by comparison to her predecessors and successors, both Republicans and Democrats. Tom Kean – another "moderate" Republican – more than doubled the size of state government during his tenure; Jim Florio increased spending his first year by more than 17% (only the election of a Republican Legislature restored some measure of fiscal sanity). And McGreevey/Codey tacked another 30% on top of already bloated spending.

Hence, Whitman’s signature boast – "fiscal responsibility" – turns out to be untrue. What about the balance?

Social issues. Start with abortion. When Whitman foolishly vetoed the partial birth abortion ban, she proposed, instead, a relatively far reaching proposal which could have formed the basis for some exceptionally positive legislation, limiting late term abortions. Unfortunately – displaying her typical people skills – she made no serious effort to find mutually acceptable ground with the Legislative sponsors. Then, like a petulant child having lost, she sulked, and refused to defend the law in Court. That one decision almost cost her what should have been an absolutely certain reelection. (In a very real sense, we have Whitman to blame for McGreevey; had she not led with her chin against an underfunded, unknown hack, he would have been relegated to an historical asterisk, akin to Peter Shapiro, never to be heard from again)

And her nauseating obsession with "diversity"; where was the message that, in America, we are UNITED, not divided, by what comes AFTER the hyphen? That it doesn’t matter where your parents came from; it’s their destination that’s important.

Oh, and gays. Admittedly, much of the conservative wing of the GOP has little use for "gay rights", in many cases due to the belief that what gays do behind closed doors should stay behind closed doors. True, not a few members of the GOP coalition believe that what occurs behind those doors is profoundly immoral. But most conservatives stand united behind the view that such relationships are not the moral equivalent of heterosexual unions. In most cases, this implies no "phobia" and no particular disrespect, but a quite reasonable view that problematic behavior ought not be elevated to equal dignity with its unproblematic counterpart. In libertarian terms, "do what you want, but don’t look to me for an endorsement or a subsidy". Gays now demand both in their drive to permit gay marriage. Most conservatives – most people – strenuously object. Whitman demurs.

Chistie’s web site talks about "taking back" the GOP. Oh? This doesn’t sound like the language of someone who merely wants a seat at the table; it’s the talk of someone who wants the center seat. But when she had it in NJ, she did essentially nothing with it, and certainly didn’t treat conservatives as part of "her" party. She utterly lacked vision, direction, and, most certainly, effected no fundamental, REPUBLICAN reform. She promised property tax reform. She promised auto insurance reform. She promised fiscal responsibility.

She delivered on NONE of those promises.

To conclude, Whitman finds herself with her nose pressed against the glass door of the national party, whining that the mean conservatives don’t listen to her. But her type of Republican has controlled the New Jersey Party forever, and what do we have to show for it? We haven’t elected a US Senator in 34 years. We’ve lost seats in 8 consecutive Legislative elections, including every election while she held office. Indeed, the only time we’ve won a statewide election (without an incumbent running) is when our candidate enjoyed the inestimable benefit of running against Jim Florio.

And, when these "moderate Republicans" actually win – Kean and Whitman – whatever vestigial remnants of Republican principle exists in their politics evaporates, and they govern every bit as badly as Democrats. It’s essentially impossible to name a single action Whitman took during her second term that Jim McGreevey couldn’t endorse and didn’t duplicate.

The last thing we need, nationally, is to duplicate the "success" that local Republicans, following Whitman’s philosophy, produced in NJ.

Perhaps it would be easier to accept Whitman’s assertion of fealty to GOP princples at face value if she had the common decency to publicly apologize to the people of NJ for her failure to apply them when they mattered.

* "Moderate" (n); in politics, a person whose positions are reliably wrong at least fifty percent of the time.