Hail to the Chief

I read, with some interest, the PoliticsNJ story yesterday about the pending appointment of Chief Justice Andrews. Being an earnest fellow – and it not yet being April 1 – I took the story seriously and penned a commentary, less about Andrews than about our awful Supreme Court. Learning the truth, I figured, post it anyway; then, maybe, post it with a disclaimer. Finally, I decided, delete the whole thing.

But I spent too much time on a perfectly good rant to let it go completely to waste.

The premise – that a Legislator might be appointed to the Supreme Court – interests me. The last Legislator to serve as a Supreme Court Justice was Robert Wilentz and, THAT precedent bodes ill for the prospect that a Legislator would act like a judge rather an a politician once he trades in his legislative frock coat for a robe.

The New Jersey Supreme Court enjoys a well-deserved reputation for being almost as nutty as the Florida Supreme Court. (Although Massachusetts and Nevada offer strong challenges). Our "high" Court often acts that way, boasting an almost unbroken record of arrogance. It simply ignores statutes it finds inconvenient and blithely rewrites the state Constitution to suit the policy preferences of the Justices.

The primary element of a successful satire rests in getting the story just right enough to pass muster. Hence, the manufactured quotation in the story – that the proposed appointments "... would not push the court away from its traditional ideology" struck a responsive chord, as being entirely consistent with the rationale offered by the Left for choosing judges in the first instance. Results. They’re not particularly fussy about how one arrives at the "correct" result, provided that the policy adopted satisfies whatever "progressives" deem desirable.

That’s poison. Courts should not HAVE "ideologies". Indeed, potential justices should be explicitly vetted to ensure that they will NOT bring an "ideology" to the Court. If nothing else, having denied under oath any desire to judicially advance a political agenda, such promise might tend to shame a nominee into behaving, at least until he gets tenure.

All too often, our Supreme Court does what it bloody well pleases, without regard to the text or history of either the Constitution or statutes. Consider such outrages as Mount Laurel, Abbott v. Burke, the Lautenberg/Torricelli decision, the redistricting decision, or the various borrowing decisions. In Mount Laurel, the Court construed the constitution as requiring massive numbers of suburban condos (aka "sprawl"). In Abbott, it asserted the right to tell the Legislature how much to tax and spend. In the redistricting case, it proved itself to be not only illiterate – incapable of reading the Constitution – but innumerate as well – incapable of understanding, as the Appellate Division succinctly stated, that 1 + 1 = 2. The borrowing decisions – permitting contract debt and giving McGreevey a mulligan ("we'll let you violate the constitution just this once") was astonishing. (Perhaps, at some point, the Court will explain what other constitutional provisions can be violated, just this once, with impunity.)

And it’s a pretty fair bet that the Court is about to invent a right for gays to marry, probably written by Poritz as either her final legislative action – figuratively flipping the bird to the people on her way out – or, perhaps, merely as the crown jewel in a career almost unprecedented in hubris, the final gateway on the road to richly deserved obscurity.

Mind, this is NOT because the result at which she arrived in any particular case (necessarily) constitutes bad policy. That is, the Court is not wrong because it imposes an objectionable ideology, but because it imposes ANY ideology. Perhaps building thousands of suburban condos makes good sense. Maybe, permitting political Party Bosses to replace their Party’s voters’ nominee – a clear loser – on the ballot scant weeks before an election, is desirable. Maybe urban schools should spend twice as much as their suburban counterparts. Maybe drawing facially unconstitutional districts which favor Democrats makes good sense. Fantastically costly pre-school might actually benefit children and save money in the long run. And, perhaps, gays should be permitted to marry.

But absolutely no doubt exists that NONE of these decisions is mandated by either the Constitution or statute.

Our last two Chiefs raised judicial arrogance to an art form, with Poritz at least equaling or surpassing her predecessor’s legendary conceit. In a recent case – which, somewhat surprisingly, the Court majority got right – The Chief wandered off, in dissent, arguing, in essence, that nothing as trivial as the text of the statute she was allegedly construing should stand in the way of arriving at the "correct" result. The mere fact that the Legislature has not yet gotten around to addressing a particular subject, she asserted, should not prevent a Court from anticipating what the Legislature might do.

That's not applying the law; that's making it up as you go along.

But consider the nomination of a man like Andrews. He seems a pretty standard issue liberal. He’s 100% pro-abortion NARAL seal of approval;100% anti-choice (when it comes to schools, that is), boasting a 100% NEA record. He supported anti-free speech political restrictions and has opposed just about every effort to rein in lawsuits. He’s ranked wrong 3/4th of the time by taxpayer groups. In short, a fairly typical Big Government, High Taxing, Big Spending liberal. Or, in other words, just about consistently wrong on everything.

None of which has ANYTHING do to with how he’d act as a judge, PROVIDED that he agrees that a Judge must check his ideology at the courthouse door.

Chief Justice Wilentz – perhaps frustrated that the Legislature failed to enact his world view during his short tenure in the Assembly – treated the Court as his personal Legislature, a more malleable venue for imposing his quirky philosophy upon a reluctant populace. Poritz continued this embarrassing tradition.

The question for the Senate, then, is whether a nominee understands the fundamental difference between the role of a Legislator and the role of a Judge. Simply put, a black robe is not a license to impose one’s views on abortion, education, social policy, etc., upon the people. If one wants to effect policy, one should run for office.

As the Democrats in Trenton endorse liberal policies – often policies they lack the fortitude to openly support or legislatively enact – they would happily endorse an effort to judicially impose them, under the guise of constitutional mandate. They cannot be trusted to object strongly if a Court does so, nor to ask probing questions designed to explore a nominee’s judicial philosophy.

Possibly, a legislator, with vast legislative experience, will appreciate the fundamental difference between the Legislature, which makes policy, and the Judiciary, which must not. Maybe, such a nominee would actually READ the Constitution, and act according to the intentions of the Framers – and the people – rather than writing his own policy predilections into the text. Perhaps he would interpret statutes to carry through the Legislature’s intentions, and not merely as empty vessels into which he can pour his own wishes and desires for just society.

If not – if such Nominee carries on the legacy of his immediate predecessors – perhaps the worst history could do would be to forever link his name with those of Wilentz and Poritz, names which make any true student of the judicial function, cringe with shame.

Kudos, again, to Steve Kornacki, for an effective satire, which provided me with several happy hours of Court bashing.

Pension Pomposity

Five years ago, every legislative office was besieged with correspondence, mostly from retired teachers, urging the Legislature to pass a Bill, which effectively increased TPAF and PERS pension by 9%.

I reflexively recoil from the idea of spending taxpayer money on gifts. Clearly, neither the retirees, nor then-working employees, had either contributed a nickel toward increased benefits, or relied upon same when considering retirement. I engaged in some rather spirited debate with the advocates of the proposal, ultimately deciding that if the people who administer the pension funds advised that the Funds were solvent enough to permit that benefit increase, I would support it. Much to my surprise, the PRB supported the proposal and, true to my word, I voted for the increase. I believe that only one lonely soul – Rick Merkt– voted no.

And he’s been proven correct; I’ve been proven wrong.

In my own defense, I considered the pension funds as akin to a collective 401(k). If – as the pros who ran the fund advised – the fund had excess assets, the purpose of the fund was to benefit retirees, and they should receive the windfall. That taxpayers, remember, were already benefitting, contributions to the "over-funded" pensions having been suspended.

But I should have known better. A political saw runs something along the lines of, "It is less blessed to give than to not taketh away". Having extended that gift, I should have realized that it would be impossible to repeal, if times changed. They have, and it is.

You may have noticed that the pension funds are no longer flush. You may have heard that the taxpayers are being asked to pony up something like $1.2 billion this year alone to put them back on a sound footing. If you were a teacher or a municipal employee, you heard about a proposal to repeal that pension gift, introduced by Senator Kavanaugh.

And you were shocked – SHOCKED – that anyone might consider asking you to give back a benefit you didn’t pay for and didn’t earn.

Being afflicted with a terminal case of honesty, lacking a "politic" personality (one Livingston teacher, outraged that I suggested that the taxpayers should not foot the whole bill, called me "pompous"; I leave that judgment to a candid audience.), and liking debate, I willingly engage the spenders. With interesting results.

Let’s be clear: the additional 9% was a GIFT. No one worked for years anticipating that benefit; they expected the lower benefit established by statute. And that benefit is wholly unknown in the private sector. If, once, teachers might have laid claim to being underpaid, such has not been the case since Tom Kean’s Governorship (when the salary for a starting teacher matched or exceeded that for a starting lawyer working for a Superior Court Judge).

But even if that were the case, the taxpayers are staring down the barrel of a $30 billion pension deficit. To which, every single public employee who has written to me so far has replied, in effect, "get the money from somewhere to keep my (unearned) benefits rolling in."

Now, it speaks no ill of hardworking, dedicated governmental employees to firmly state: you are not entitled to benefits you did not earn, and if the assumptions underlying the gift to you prove to be wrong, you, not the taxpayers, should make the sacrifice.

But, as above, just TRY taking something back, even when it was not earned.

Many folks complain that they’ve come to depend upon the increased benefits. They have my sympathy, and I do not mean that facetiously. No one can absorb a 9% cut in the amount to which they have grown accustomed without enduring some pain.

But it’s not a choice between higher benefits, duly earned, paid for from investments, and a stingy refusal to pay public employees what they’re worth. The choices are (a) pay the higher benefits, and see the plan go bankrupt, shafting future retirees (which, of course, will never happen); (b) a modest cuts in benefits, back to the level the employees expected before the Legislative gift; or (c) a massive subsidy from the already overburdened taxpayers.

Given that only (b) and (c) are realistic, I favor (b). If favoring the taxpayers makes me "pompous", to such charge I plead unabashedly guilty.

And to Rick Merkt: YOU WERE RIGHT!

Looney Toons from the Left

Permit me to share a letter I received from a constituent:

"My husband and I are hardworking, born and raised New Jersey professionals, who are now working hard to get out of New Jersey. Why: because -- like many here -- we no longer can afford to live in New Jersey with its excessively high property tax rates and high cost of living. Now Gov. Corzine wants to hold funding to local schools flat -- which will only mean another property tax hike (our taxes have gone up more than $2,000 in less than five years), tax our hospitals (which already are struggling), and even tax us on the water we drink.

Where is the creativity and hard choices that need to be made in this state so people like my husband and I and our children can afford to make a home in New Jersey?

The budget Corzine presented -- like so many others before it -- is just more of the same that places the burden on New Jersey residents who are already stretched to the limit.

The new state slogan -- get out while the getting's good."

Now, contrast this lament about high taxes with the patently idiotic proposals put forth by the famously inappropriately named "Fairness Alliance", a group of envycrats who clearly failed basic economics and lack any clue about human nature.

State government, you see, is TOO SMALL, taxes are TOO LOW, spending is not high enough. And we’re taxing the wrong people. Government has been permitting those horrible, evil "rich" folks – "millionaires" who make over $200K per annum – to keep too much of their own money.

So, the solution: increase income taxes for "the rich", including extending the "millionaires’ tax", and, then, impose a financial assets tax on those with more than $2 million in capital assets, like stocks. This, they predict, will raise some $2 billion. (Which, of course, is nonsense, as it assumes that the targets will sit still to be taxed by the envycrats, and that won't happen.)

Where do we find people like this? Do they honestly believe that rich folks are such rubes that they’ll sit still and let Jon Shure and his band of collectivist pirates pillage their wealth?

(Interestingly, many of these same left wing zealots object to the Patriot Act on the grounds that the government might – GASP!! HORRORS!! – go to a library and find out what we’re reading. But they have absolutely no problem when the government demands to know not only what we’re earning, but what we own. I’d be a lot happier if government took my reading list and left my paycheck alone.)

The underlying assumption is that the "rich" are either stuck here, or will come here anyway, despite the socialist tendencies of government, because New Jersey offers so many wonderful benefits.

Right.

As repeatedly noted herein, we saw net outmigration of some 60,000 citizens last year, and the pace is increasing. Disproportionately, these are higher end folks, with high paying jobs who, all things considered, prefer to spend what they earn on their own kids and not on Jon Shure’s socialist utopia. The ONLY growth industry in New Jersey is government. Private sector employment is lower now than 5 years ago. ‘Course, to the "Fairness Alliance" a growing government is desirable; they just want "someone else" to pay the bills.

Leaving aside the philosophically bankrupt idea – that the purpose of government is to get A to pay B’s bills, because A has more money – as a practical matter, it can’t be done. Sooner or later, A gets fed up and moves to Pennsylvania. The statistics simply don’t lie. The only way a workers’ paradise such as that Shure and his tax marauders contemplate could possibly survive would be to block all the exists. An economic model based on East Germany merits little consideration. Even Jon Corzine – who recently had a full body scan which revealed not a single conservative bone in his body – seems to understand that if you tax the rich, they’ll go away. We have been, and they are.

Perhaps, the purpose of groups like Shure’s is to sound so Looney Toons that Corzine’s budget begins to look almost acceptable by comparison.

People like my letter writer understand reality. As taxes progressively increase, only the people in the middle – for whom escape is more difficult – get hurt. The poor and lower income workers pay no taxes. All those "rich" folk you THOUGHT lived in New Jersey suddenly turn out to be residents of Florida (which, sensibly, has no income tax). Who’s left in Jon Shure’s crosshairs? Correct: the middle class.

Already, we see it. The Left starting by defining "millionaire" at $500K per year. That producing insufficient revenue, the left wants to move it down to $200K per year. When revenues decline even further, as the targets flee, rather than cut government, they’ll lower it to $100K per year. Pretty soon, EVERYONE stupid enough to live in NJ is a "millionaire", not doing his "fair share" to prop up the huge edifice of a bloated government. Like Sweden – which was once an economic powerhouse and now boasts an economy about on par with Mississippi – we can all be "equally" poor.

Let’s be clear: taxes on the middle class are not too high because those on the rich are too low. Taxes on everyone are too high because government spends too much. The people need to assess whether spending $25000 or so on each kid in an Abbott district warrants the taxes necessary to do so; whether the vibrant growing economy necessary to support ANY government can be sustained at the levels of taxation already in place.

Put another way, however "necessary" a particular program might appear to be, however compelling the rationale, if the taxes necessary to fund it undermine the economy, that program needs to be cut. A program cannot be judged merely upon the good intentions of the people who run it. The real world consequences of Big Government – flight of productive people to freer states – must be considered.

The only truly memorable line from Corzine’s budget address ran:

"I think the values of most New Jerseyans include the expectation that as individuals, and as a community, we must pay our own way in life."

Probably every member of the "Fairness Alliance" cringed. But if the state’s motto is not to be, as my correspondent suggested, "Git while the gittin’s good", it must be "pay your own way". If even a compassionate liberal like Corzine recognizes that – assuming he truly believes it – there might yet be hope.

Not an Echo

In response to one of my earlier posts, a writer inquires:

"Where were you and you brothers when Governor Whitman and a Republican Legislature "cut taxes" by enormously increasing debt (that would come due....about now) and then increasing the size of government and the State budget-for eight years? You and your "brothers" allowed credit card spending with the repayment shifted to many years later. No pension payments were required of State, and local governments until last year. Her appointments were as bad as McGreevy's as was her grasp of running State Government. I must have missed the Republican criticism during those years, but all the things you accuse Corzine of attempting to do, Whitman accomplished over the course of her Administration.

I do, however, agree with many of your proposals to cut wasteful spending. Plenty of blame to go around."

A perfectly fair criticism, for the most part.

Not of ME, I respectfully contend, but of the GOP generally. Alas, when Republicans had the chance, we failed to reform government so as to prevent precisely the sort of massive fiscal malpractice we witnessed during the McGreevey-Codey years. And, alas, much of that malpractice found its genesis in the Whitman/DiFrancesco years.

In fairness, Whitman’s first term represented – especially in retrospect – a somewhat muddled, haphazard, half-hearted imitation of what Republicans actually believe, fiscally. She DID cut taxes. Twice – in 1995 and again in 1997 – spending actually declined over the previous year’s expenditures. Although not a model of fiscal integrity, Whitman’s first term held spending in check – in relative terms. Her second term – and the continuation thereof under DiFrancesco – was a fiscal horror show.

In my own defense, I voted against all but one of the "Republican" budgets, against the insane pension bond boondoggle and against the school construction bond scheme. I even voted against a TTF revision because it didn’t restrict new borrowing; I was the only Member of the Assembly who did. (Prompting one of my colleagues to heckle, "you want anything built in your district?")

A few Republicans stood up to our own Party leaders when they decided to embark on fiscally reckless paths. Virtually every one of them comes under the heading of "conservative". As I recollect, 8 Assembly Members voted against the pension bond, including your humble correspondent. If memory serves, only one of those was a Democrat: Joe Suliga. So the Dems have no right to bellyache.

Unfortunately, the Republicans can conceive of no bad idea which the Democrats can’t perfect. These last four years, under McGreevey and Codey, rank among the worst, most recklessly irresponsible administrations in the history of the United States. We are now reaping the benefits of years of Democratic misrule in the form of higher taxes, higher unemployment, and population exodus. It’s almost enough to make one feel sorry for Jon Corzine.

Nonetheless, as the writer effectively points out, it simply will not do to nominate another yes-but-less pale Republican endorser of failed Democratic policies. If the voters perceive that the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is the identity of the folks who get the fat government contracts, they have no incentive to vote at all. To quote St. Barry, the GOP must offer a choice, not an echo.

That means no namby-pamby Republicans who refuse to say where they’d cut spending, or who fear to tick off powerful constituencies. The only way to bring about real reform is precisely by annoying virtually everyone who gets the slightest benefit from taxpayer funds. Simply put, any candidate who even bothers to answer the NJEA questionnaire merits no consideration whatsoever.

In every single poll ever taken, the people say, by margins of at least 2-1, that they want lower spending rather than higher taxes, and that they’re willing to accept fewer services in return. THAT is the program upon which the next Republican candidate should run, such that no more correspondents can look toward the GOP and say, "see, you’re no different than the other guys".

Our candidate might not win; the Big Guns of Big Government will let loose with all they’ve got. But if we’re going to bother with elections at all, there might as well be a difference in government if the Good Guys win.

The Squealing Begins

Excuse me for not being overly sympathetic to the various and sundry institutions of higher education here in NJ complaining about Governor Corzine’s budget cuts.

First, as a general rule, when an adult receives something, he should expect to pay the costs of same. College is certainly expensive, but those who receive the benefits are ADULTS, and they are owed nothing by society. The taxpayers already subsidize the costs of higher education; compelling the beneficiaries to give something back is hardly an odious requirement.

Second, the universities could use a little introspection about the appropriate role of a university.

A PUBLIC university, funded by the taxpayers, should not serve as a farm club for professional sports teams. There is simply no excuse for paying a coach

"... $191,000 in salary this year. Under the new deal, he will earn $250,000 in salary next year, increasing to $350,000 by 2012. The contract also increases his guaranteed income from private sources from $325,000 this year to $625,000 next year and $750,000 by 2012."

A football coach? More than the Governor? More than the President of the United States? More than the President of UMDNJ (who, himself, is hugely overpaid)? Do not, Mr. University President, come pleading poverty to me with salaries like that for COACHES.

Or consider: whole departments devoted, apparently, more to indoctrination than education, boasting courses such as "Queer Contexts: Same Sex Desire, Culture, and Representation"; "Racism and Sexism in the United States"; "Lesbian Issues"; etc. (each of these is a real course at a publicly funded college; the list, obviously, could be infinitely longer) . Eliminating departments such as Black Studies, Africana Studies, Women and Gender studies, etc., and replacing them with real scholarship – as opposed to "Introduction to Victimology and Political Correctness 101" – could save millions while, at the same time, ensuring that people who attend college actually receive an education. Do we really need public money funneled to people who are proud of writing "Heterosexism in the Classroom" and who consider a "research project ... on the influence of the Barbie doll on the socialization of college students" worthy of their time? Folks who wish to engage in such frivolity should do it on the private sector’s nickel – assuming they could find someone willing to underwrite it.

So, let’s not hear any whining about budget cuts at state universities until such time as they take a good, long, hard look in the mirror and spare the taxpayer the burden of funding farm league sports franchises, political indoctrination, and tenured radicals. And if, as the President of Rutgers noted, the budget cuts will produce a "different Rutgers", that might not be such a bad idea.

Good and Hard, II

Rule of Thumb:

The more times Legislative Democrats interrupt a speech by the Democratic Governor with applause, the worse it will be for the people.

By that measure, Governor Corzine’s Budget Address ranks as a masterpiece. He received applause only once. True to form, that applause came when he made one of his most objectionable proposals: to borrow hundreds of millions for stem cell research centers, adopting a Japanese-style industrial policy doomed to a fate as an expensive failure. (Can anyone say Synfuels?)

No doubt to the great consternation of the Legislative tax-and-spendocrats, a conservative Republican could easily have delivered a fair percentage of the Governor’s address.

Problem: when Governor McGreevey talked about finances, he often sounded pretty good. Unfortunately, he didn’t mean a word of it.

Problem: when Governor Codey spoke about finances, he often sounded pretty good, but he didn’t mean a word of it.

Or, more accurately, they employed language along the same lines as Humpty Dumpty: when they used words like "balanced budget" and "fiscal responsibility", they meant something completely different than the dictionary definition of those words. Somewhat akin to Fidel Castro using the word "freedom". In their mouths, those words bore absolutely no relationship to what the listeners thought they were hearing.

Further problem: during the campaign, Corzine said essentially none of this. And during this speech, Hizonor referred to the TTF fix as "responsible". If that unconscionable action represents his definition of "responsible", the people are in real trouble.

Give the devil his due. IF – and THAT has got to be the biggest word in the political lexicon – Corzine follows through on his plans – which is to say, if he tells folks like Lou Greenwald, of "courage to spend" fame, to go pound salt – some programs will disappear, others with shrink. THAT is a categorically a Good Thing.

Putting the appropriate amount of dollars into the pension fund, while painful, is what responsible governments do. Starting to get a grip on the engine which drives spending perpetually higher – you know, the things Governor Codey admitted were problems, then either blithely ignored or made substantially worse – merits support. Republicans – indeed, anyone with an ounce of fiscal responsibility – should wholeheartedly support these beginnings and urge that we build on this foundation, especially when it comes time to contract with government employees.

But it simply will not do to increase the sales tax. If cutting $1.4 billion is what it will take to achieve that goal, then let’s begin.

First, don’t increase aid to Abbott districts by one red cent, let along $300 million. Indeed, they should be progressively weaned – like, over the course of about a week – of their unwarranted state subsidy. Give them whatever the average school district spends; they’re entitled to absolutely nothing more.

Second, reduce every state department to its 2000 level of employment (given my druthers, I’d take it back to 1981, but one must start somewhere). Government, on all levels, added almost 50,000 jobs over the course of the past five years; condition all state aid to municipalities and school districts (except those which have increased K-12 enrollment) upon reduction to the 2000 level of employment. Since the average governmental employee makes more than $50,000, not including benefits, reduction to 2000 levels would save billions, essentially solving much of the "deficit" problem in one swoop.

Third, cut aid to Newark by the amount it wasted on a worthless arena and by the $80 million it proposes to use as a slush fund to reward politically connected businesses. If it can afford those, it can do so on its own nickel.

Fourth, abolish project labor agreements, prevailing wage laws, and other, similar mandates which artificially inflate the costs of construction. Abolish needless agencies within government, such as anything with the words "affirmative action" or "multicultural" in the title.

Indeed, one can find cuts in unlikely places. Consider domestic violence. Roughly 40% of all such complaints involve absolutely no "violence" whatsoever, being based upon "harassment". It trivializes true violence to conflate annoying phone calls with assault. Furthermore, numerous judges and their staffs, as well as whole departments, do nothing else with their time than process DV complaints. If the number of cases declined by 30,000 tomorrow (as it would), because only truly "violent" offences were counted, we’d need fewer judges and much less staff, saving mucho dollars.

These are the mere tips of the budgetary iceberg. No doubt, my brothers Gregg, Merkt, Pennacchio, McHose, Doherty, and Karrow, to name but a few, could offer many more ideas for scaling back the budget, such as to completely undercut any rationale for increasing taxes by $175 per person (as the sales tax alone would do). Were the Gov to drop the dime, I’m certain we’d all be happy to meet at a time and place convenient to him.

Of course, our priorities diverge substantially from those of the Governor. But, by employing phrases like "people should pay their own way", the Governor made some very conservative sounding noises. Such constitutes the first step in recovering from liberalism: admit the problem.

The trick to being a "progressive" is understanding that, no matter how much one’s heart bleeds for the poor, the lame, the halt, and the blind (and whose doesn’t?), or how great the perceived needs might be, those needs MUST remain unmet – governmentally – if the costs of meeting them undermines the economy. We’ve already reached that stage, and beyond; the proposed tax increases make matters worse, thereby making recovery all the more difficult. In order to resurrect the economy, ensure prosperity and, thereby, help the folks for whom Corzine and other liberals profess such sympathy, it’s necessary that we cut taxes, restrain spending, and rely upon the generosity of the people to give, rather than depend upon government to take.

Good and Hard

Recollect the scene from Animal House, when the Kevin Bacon character, resplendent in his ROTC uniform, attempts to reassure the panicky parade crowd that "all is well", only to be stampeded into the sidewalk, flattened by the fleeing mob?

Already, New Jersey economic development officials find themselves in the unenviable position of reassuring the populace that "all is well". A few folks walk purposefully past them; the mob of taxpayers grows restless, eyeing avenues of retreat. They suspect, rightly, that all is not well.

One is sorely tempted to speculate that New Jersey Democrats, like the Deltas, WANT the mob to panic and flee. They keep firing fiscal explosives and throwing masses of marbles under the feet of the economy. And, with this budget, they’re aiming their deathmobile battering ram squarely at the foundations of New Jersey business.

Long have I entertained the sneaking suspicion that the Democrats’ policies are so consistently boneheaded and insane that they CAN’T be mistakes. Corzine, Roberts, Codey, and the Dems are many things, but stupid isn’t one of them. Since the consequences of their policy proposals are so obvious and predictable, it compels the conclusion that they must intend these results.

Consider the triple whammy of confiscatory taxes, oppressive regulation, and stifling "environmental" restrictions. The net effect of these rules is to drive people – young, middle class folks with young, growing families, at the start of what promise to be lucrative careers, and older, retired, middle class folks too "rich" to qualify for subsidies but not rich enough to ignore ever increasing costs – out of state.

Some groups in the Democratic coalition openly admit that such is precisely their intent. Consider the Sierra Club. It advocates, essentially, for the complete cessation of growth in the suburbs (except, incongruously, for Mount Laurel developments, the very definition of "sprawl"). At the same time, it supports mandatory insurance coverage for contraceptives, expressly on the grounds that such might tend to keep the population down (an inane assumption, but one they articulate) Couple this expressly anti-people position with proposals such as the anti-people Highlands Law and one detects a pattern: reduce the number of people in NJ.

By whatever means necessary. Prohibit them from building houses. Proscribe any new business construction. Increase their taxes. Tax their employers. Make them walking entitlements so that no business can afford to hire them.

One wonders: what type of society do the Democrats actually want? The exodus to PA – and elsewhere – is already apparent. Private industry, in NJ, actually lost jobs in the past five years, under the encouragement of the McGreevey-Codey administrations. At the same time, government employment mushroomed. Governor McGreevey ... er, Corzine (sorry, Freudian slip) now proposes to continue this legacy, urging an increase in state spending about five times the rate of inflation, and massively increasing taxes.

Perhaps, they envision a society in which the only folks remaining behind are rich liberals, – who can afford massive estates, and don’t much mind taxes – and the little people, primarily immigrants, who wait their tables, pump their gas, cut their lawns, and take care of their 1.3, private school educated kids?

Corzine’s budget program is a disaster. He claims that he was bequeathed a massive deficit. Oh, and who might the authors of that legacy be? McGreevey, Codey, and the Democratic Legislative majority?

And, yet, knowing full well what to expect, the voters elected them anyway.

To repeat Mark Twain’s oft quoted observation about democracy: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard."

The people voted for these "representatives". Despite the incontestable evidence of the last four years, and his own hugely expensive political record, the voters believed Corzine when he said he saw no need for higher taxes and would increase rebates. They believed him when, on his campaign website, he promised "immediate steps to rein in government spending". They believed him when, during the campaign, he said, "I promise you one thing, I'll be honest when I sit in that governor's chair." (Perhaps he was being absolutely truthful: now, when he occupies that chair, he’s being honest. That promise didn't apply on the campaign trail.)

The people are about to get it, good and hard.

And anyone standing between the people and the exits had best move out of the way.

Send Them Home.

In an all-too-common headline, the paper again reports on a heinous crime committed by illegal aliens in Morris County. A quick Google search reveals that crime by illegal immigrants is not an isolated problem. By definition, these folks operate outside of the normal rules of society. Significant numbers of inmates at our county and state jails enjoy, in their incarceration, their first legal address. And they’re costing us a fortune.

At the same time as we insist that wheelchair bound grandmothers remove their shoes before flying, the federal government does essentially nothing to shore up our borders. Indeed, it sits back and tolerates publications by foreign governments on how to evade even the paltry immigration laws America sees fit to impose. The states get kicked in the teeth by this federal inaction. Illegals clog our jails; their children flood our schools, for which they pay no taxes to support.

As a conservative, I certainly support much of the President’s agenda, including his visionary tax cuts and unapologetically aggressive foreign policy. But much of his domestic agenda leaves quite a bit to be desired. His expansion of the federal government, and reckless spending, almost suffice to make the Democrats in Trenton look good by comparison. But nowhere is his failure more evident that in his steadfast refusal to take decisive action to stem the tide of illegal immigration, and to send those who flout the law back to from wherever they came.

While New Jersey residents can, and most certainly should, INSIST that their congressional representatives take decisive action against illegal immigration – which should, at minimum, include insisting that no one here illegally be permitted to stay – there are certain measure that New Jersey can take on its own.

First, NJ should respectfully request from the federal government that the feds create a secure holding facility – at federal expense, here in New Jersey, to which facility all illegal aliens awaiting trial on criminal charges, serving time for state crimes, or picked up by police can be taken. The result would be to save the counties, and the states, the tens of millions of dollars it costs to house, feed, and medicate these folks, who should not be here in the first place and who would, if the feds did their job, not be here at all. If the feds won’t secure the borders against infiltration, the least it can do is assume the expense of its failures. AR 162 asks Congress to do precisely that.

And, secondly, when our local police – officers trained to spot phony ID – encounter someone with dubious credentials, they should not merely turn him back out into the community. They should enjoy the right to arrest these folks and transport them to a secure federal facility to that they can be rapidly repatriated with their family and friends in their country of origin.

Every American, without exception (including "natives") is either an immigrant or the descendant of immigrants. (Assuming scientific theory to be correct, we are all African Americans) As a nation, we should certainly permit folks who wish to come to do so, in numbers sufficiently small to ensure assimilation into American culture. There’s nothing wrong with a guestworker program, either. But no one should EVER benefit from breaking the law. People here illegally should be immediately escorted to the nearest exit. New Jersey should do its part by reminding the federal government of its obligations and doing its own part to enforce the law.

Walmart Fraud Redux

The Daily Record reports on an "unbiased" study, undertaken by the liberal New Jersey Policy Perspective (a crowd which believes firmly that we’re undertaxed and that government is far too small) and released by the AFL-CIO – another disinterested party – finds that Walmart leads the state in the number of employees or dependents receiving state subsidized health care, NJ Family Care.

So, let’s look at the numbers – assuming (which is almost always a mistake) that the newspaper actually got the facts right.

Walmart employs 12,500 people in New Jersey. Of that number, 589 employees and/or their dependents use Family Care. Let’s be generous to the liberals and assume that all 589 such folks work at Walmart, rather than a few hundred employees with a few hundred spouses and kids. That amounts to 4.7% of the Walmart workforce. That number also represents about .4% of the total 160,000 person clientele of Family Care. That is to say, an infinitesimally small number of Walmart employees are on the public health care plan, and they represent a tiny fraction of the total burden.

In a patently fraudulent "response" to this non-problem, the Left proposes to impose a huge tax upon "large employers" equal to the difference between 8% of payroll and the lesser amount that such employer devotes to health benefits. Walmart could, much more cheaply, simply provide full health benefits to these 589 folks, thereby eliminating the pretext for this legislation, but that would not stop the Left, as the purpose is NOT to help people without health insurance, but to prevent competition with high wage union workers competing with Walmart.

In a horrible old movie entitled "Dragon Slayer", a village, oppressed by a dragon, sacrifices virgins thereto in return for the safety of the village. A young virgin, fearing for her life, ventures forth to find a dragon slayer to rid the village of the beast, neglecting, as one reviewer put it, an obvious alternative. Just so, here, the Left neglects an obvious alternative: Walmart might decide to become not a "large employer", purging sufficient employees to come in under the 10,000 limit.

Of course, the Left would then simply amend the Bill – as, in their more honest moments, they admit to be the ultimate goal anyway – to apply to ever smaller employers. Eventually, no one – in New Jersey – will be able to undersell high cost stores. ('Course, they don't have to shop in NJ, a point which the Left either overlooks or -- in another typical example of the Left's long term thinking, akin to the TTF -- simply doesn't care about.)

The first result of such a proposal would be to liberate Walmart customers from the tyranny of low prices – if they shop in New Jersey, which ever larger numbers of them will cease to do – and a certain number of Walmart employees from the tyranny of actually having to show up at work. As we progress further down the socialist slippery slope, the inevitable result will be fewer jobs, less economic growth, and an increase in the disturbing exodus of Americans from New Jersey. Such is ALWAYS the consequence of higher taxes and more oppressive regulations.

Only a complete economic illiterate could support such a proposal.

People capable of escaping such a socialist paradise, will. In fact, they already are. As noted previously, almost 60,000 citizens shook the dust of NJ from the sandals for greener, freer, less expensive, lower taxed (that is to say, virtually anyplace else in America) pastures last year; that number is almost triple the number from a scant four years ago. Citizens are not walking to the exits, they are BOLTING, taking their jobs, incomes, and purchasing power with them.

So, on the fraudulent pretext of helping a paltry 589 people, the Democrats will impose massive tax increases on business and massive price increases upon the already stressed middle class. Refugees will continue to clog the interstates with their moving vans and fill PA cash registers with their purchases. All to prevent consumers from getting a better price than they receive at the local, high cost grocery store down the street. (And, incidentally, don’t let the advocates of this proposal get away with telling you its about the low priced, Chinese-made plastic cups Walmart sells; they’re much more concerned about low priced FOOD, especially meat, because that’s where their union supporters make their living.)

This proposal has precisely nothing to do with getting Walmart employees health insurance and everything to do with jacking up prices to prevent competition with unionized super markets. People simply cannot be permitted to work for less than union scale, nor can stores like Walmart be permitted to sell for less than other stores charge.

If the Left were really concerned about the little guy, would they be pushing a bill which will cost many of them their jobs and jack up the cost of putting food on the table for working class kids?

Charity and Governmental Responsibility

Sitting in the Legislature, we are sometimes asked to provide benefits to folks who suffered great personal loss. Obviously, these people are sympathetic supplicants and the general inclination on the part of the assembled politicians is to dip into the taxpayers’ pockets to help.

Query, though, whether any justification for this official largesse exists.

Consider today’s editorial from The New York Times on the subject of Katrina assistance, and specifically, the following quote:

"(under a plan recently approved) Homeowners would receive up to a maximum of $150,000 based on the pre-Katrina value of their property, with any insurance payments subtracted. The plan required the additional $4.2 billion in block grants. It was less than the Louisiana team had hoped for, but it was a commitment that would allow rebuilding to begin."

Not to minimize, in any way, the suffering of the residents of storm ravaged New Orleans, Louisiana, or Mississippi, but precisely how did such charity work become a federal responsibility?

If asked – personally – most Americans would happily donate to assist disaster victims. And we did, generously. But government doesn’t ASK, it DEMANDS. It takes no account of a taxpayer’s individual circumstances; it elevates the perceived needs of its beneficiaries above the needs of those who pay the bills.

Consider the somewhat perverse incentive created by such programs: the less insurance one bought – that is, the less responsibility one took for one’s own affairs – the greater the resulting taxpayer subsidy.

Would it be such an imposition upon the residents of coastal states to INSIST that they take appropriate precautions against the inevitable hurricanes, purchase appropriate insurance, etc?

Or consider the west coast. California is CERTAIN to get hit with another earthquake – and a big one – in the not too distant future. And, yet, in all likelihood, a substantial number of folks still decline to purchase readily available earthquake insurance. Given the government's recent performance, that’s not a bad gamble; why spend the money when they know, based upon past experience, that the ground will not even finish shaking before their Congressman puts in a bill to reimburse them – at taxpayer expense – for their losses?

Certain disasters simply overwhelm the ability of the states to respond effectively, warranting federal involvement. Rescue efforts, short term disaster relief, etc., these make sense.

But rebuilding homes? Isn’t that why people buy insurance? And, if they don’t, should the government -- let along the FEDERAL government -- step in to relieve them of the consequences of their own folly?

Indeed, should we not, as a society, INSIST that people who live in areas subject to perfectly predictable natural calamities buy appropriate insurance, or suffer the consequences of their own irresponsibility? Why, pray tell, should NJ taxpayers underwrite the cost of reconstructing homes in LA (Los Angeles, that is) when the eminently predictable earthquake hits? Insurance which factors in the risks is readily available; if someone foolishly fails to purchase it, should the government bail him out?

Similarly, as a homeowner in Ocean County, should I expect Morris County residents to underwrite the costs of rebuilding, should that home be damaged in an eminently foreseeable Northeaster or hurricane? I CHOOSE to own a home there, knowing the risks full well. Why should the hard pressed taxpayers subsidize the risks associated with that choice?

Perhaps the huge expense associated with the Katrina rebuilding effort constitutes a good time to raise the issue of personal responsibility. We, the people of the United States, understanding that ANY section of the nation might be struck by disaster, natural or manmade, tomorrow, promise to help the victims with short term survival assistance. When local resources can’t cope, we’ll help keep order, provide short term survival aid, perhaps even offer LOANS – that is to say, money that needs to be paid back – to victims. But if the losses are such that insurance could have been purchased to cover them, and was not, that’s NOT an appropriate subject for a taxpayer subsidy.

Consider, for instance, the story often told about Congressman Davy Crockett. While serving the House of Representatives, a bill came before the House appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several Members apparently gave speeches in support; it appeared that all Members favored it and that it would pass unanimously. Then Crockett stood and offered the following comments:

"Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

A pity, is it not, that such courageous representatives appear to be in short supply today?

Government does not exist to bestow charity. Would that more of our representatives understood that.

Trying Our Patience

A few years back, I distinctly remember that someone put George Washington "on trial" for treason. (He was, of course, patently guilty as charged) Similarly, Lincoln might have been "tried" for "war crimes" for the excesses of Federal soldiers, for the conditions in many northern POW camps, or for clearly usurping the rights of people chucked into jail for opposing the war or supporting secession. And Roosevelt, too, might have been tried for the gross negligence which led up to Pearl Harbor, for the conduct of botched operations, like Tarawa, of for gross violations of neutrality, such as lend lease and the extension of naval protection for convoys.

IF, of course, that is, a President of the United States were EVER subject to a trial outside of the confines of the United States Senate.

Which brings us to the subject of the "mock trial" of President Bush undertaken by a class in Parsippany. Said class purports to be an AP class in government. One of the students observed that the teacher’s political bent "is well known", but everyone involved refused comment respecting same. No points for guessing whether he supports the war effort.

Now, the first thing a competent teacher in an AP government class would do, faced with such a question, is to instruct his charges that, outside of impeachment, the President is simply not subject to "trial" anywhere for actions taken during his tenure in office. Given that truth, what lesson, precisely, are the students in the AP government class allegedly learning by engaging in such a farce?

Obviously, not one even remotely related to American government.

The comments made by folks at the Freeholder meeting demonstrate clearly that a remedial course in government – or, at the very least, in constitutional law – might make a great deal of sense. The Record reports that some people criticized the Freeholders for an action which would "chill free speech".

People, even teachers and students, certainly possess a constitutional right to make asses of themselves. But they possess no corresponding right to be free of perfectly justifiable criticism.

If our friendly teacher wishes stimulating topics to challenge the minds of his students, might I humbly suggest the following:

Mock impeachment against any judge who imposes gay marriage on an unwilling populace;
Mock courtroom challenge against regulations such as the Highlands Law, for taking property without just compensation;
If one wishes to discuss international law, how about a mock trial of Saddam Hussein, in which events from Abu Ghraib BEFORE the Americans took over might be discussed (an exercise which has the virtue of being actually related to reality);
A mock trial, applying British libel and slander law to anyone who contends that "Bush lied";
A mock trial of The New York Times for publishing details about the "secret" domestic spying program (or a a mock suit for damages by the next terrorist victims when it becomes apparent that such publication enabled the perps to evade discovery);

In each case, the subject would relate to REAL issues relating to American government or international law, not the fevered fantasies of the Angry Left. And, in each case, there are legitimate questions and the possibility of legitimate debate on both sides. The exercise chosen bears precisely no relationship to reality; it represents nothing more than irresponsible political grandstanding

Perhaps the students – they’re in an AP class, after all – will learn, from all this, that in a free society, you make an idiot of yourself at your own peril. Engaging in inflammatory, obnoxious exercises – let alone on the taxpayers’ dime – produces predictable reactions from people suffering from a terminal case of common sense.

A class on government – it seems to this observer, with a casual interest in government – ought to be actually related to government. Any international entity which purports to exercise the right to "try" an American President had better be prepared for a visit from the United States Marines. Students in a course on American government should spend their time discussing the real world, not engaging in the paranoid delusions of the Moveon crowd.

A Death Spiral? Consider Vermont

More thoughts on the theme of population growth, high taxes, environmental extremism, judicial ursurpationism, etc.

Conservatives believe certain propositions to be true, as a matter of faith. Most of these propositions stem from a basic knowledge of human nature. Other things being equal, people will choose to pay less for a product rather than more. (Just ask any Walmart customer) They will choose to pay lower taxes rather than higher. When making decisions on where to live, or how to act, they will consider the costs of their decisions.

Liberals disagree. They live in an asperational world, in which people act as the left thinks they should, rather than as human nature dictates they will. The left sees human nature as a problem to be overcome or ignored. That explains the almost inevitable failures of their policies.

Example: a number of years ago, a Congressman asked the federal agency in charge of "neutral" statistics to estimate the revenue resulting from imposing a 100% marginal rate on all incomes over $100,000. The entity earnestly replied that such policy would yield hundreds of billions per annum in additional tax revenue. This displays the static analysis, liberal mindset.

Of course, the correct answer is that it would yield NO additional revenue whatsoever; having reached the $100,000 level, no one affected by that tax would work another minute.

Evidence is already mounting that New Jersey’s insane levels of taxation are driving people away. As noted in a previous post, tens of thousands of citizens leave NJ each year. But for immigration from foreign countries, population would actually decline. Testimony offered before the Assembly Budget Committee last year indicated that evidence exists to demonstrate that border counties in PA are already providing a haven for tax refugees. Increasingly, those same counties will, likely, attract their employers, for precisely the same reasons.

These are entirely predictable results; conservatives predicted them. The Democrats challenged us to provide proof which, increasingly, is becoming self evident.

An article in The New York Times detailing the situation im Vermont should give us all pause. There, a combination of high taxes and serious environmental restrictions (as well as judicial arrogance; Vermont has its own Abbott, which hugely increased property taxes there, just as it did here) have produced a population bust. Vermont – lacking New Jersey’s urban areas – attracts relatively few immigrants. Like New Jersey, Vermont imposes a confiscatory 9.5% income tax rate. Unsurprisingly, the article notes that Vermont has lost high paying jobs and that young, well educated people, move elsewhere. Let’s see: young people get a college education, then leave for venues with lower taxes. Sound familiar?

Vermont’s simply further down the road to demographic disaster than is New Jersey. While it’s simply impossible to assess blame to only one cause, outrageous taxes – sometimes judicially imposed in the name of "equity" – create strong incentives for young, affluent folks – who prefer to spend their money on their own kids, not on government – to leave.

Consider the situation confronting a young, idealistic Princeton grad, with a new husband and contemplating a family. Stay in NJ and pay a property tax bill which approximates the annual GDP of some countries. Deal with a state which taxes anything which moves and many things which don’t, and which adopts policies, like the TTF, expressly designed to explode in a few years. Now, look across the free bridge to New Hope, Newtown, and other PA locales, boasting good schools (with much lower property taxes), an income tax rate one third to one half as high, and the possibility of being able to actually build a home without dealing with 143,279 DEP and Highlands bureaucrats.

It very much appears as if were losing precisely the sort of people – young, educated, and affluent – we should be trying to attract. The only significant job growth or retention results for massive subsidies, like those offered to Verizon. This looks very much like a death spiral.

It simply will not do to adopt policies in a vacuum, blithely unconcerned about the effects.

Of course, the problem serious students of policy face is that the left simply doesn’t care about long term consequences. Well, the politicians, anyway. They must serve the short term demands of the constituencies which elect them, to wit: urban residents, public employees, etc., those folks who benefit from massive taxpayer subsidies. That it will eventually implode concerns them essentially not at all; they’re focused on today’s subsidy. The TTF proposal demonstrates this conclusively. A flagrant abandonment of responsibility, it represents, perhaps, the wishful thinking that matters economic will improve sufficiently in five years to permit responsibility and political expediency to coexist.

A dynamic economy simply cannot coexist with confiscatory tax rates, ESPECIALLY when a readily available, attractive, low tax alternative exists a scant few hundred yards across a small stream. Tens of thousands of productive New Jersey residents vote with their feet each year, taking their incomes out of range of the apostles of the politics of envy.

The solution lies NOT with generous taxpayer subsidies to selected, favored employers (the employees may still choose to live in PA), but tax sanity – a tax rate which approximates that in PA. And the spending cuts necessary to achieve that salutary goal.

(Governmental) Expansion and (Popular) Exodus

According to a recently released report, after four years of the McGreevey-Codey Administration, the State now boasts substantially more jobs than it did a scant five years ago. Indeed, 45,400 more people work in New Jersey than they did in 2000.

Alas, private sector employment FELL by 3,200 positions. Happily, the non-productive governmental sector more than stepped in to fill the gap, adding another 48,600 hard working public employees in a scant five years. One in six of us now makes his living off the tax revenue of the rest. 15.8% of all workers now work for government. It’s the second largest employer, after "trade, transportation, and utilities".

Scared yet?

New Jersey ranks almost dead last in the business climate, meaning that the productive people we need moving here to help pay for the "progressive" utopia Governor Corzine hopes to create will take their jobs and money elsewhere. Statistics from the same report seem to show that they are doing precisely that.

Consider what New Jersey pays its public employees. Although the folks at the top are often underpaid by private sector standards (imagine the head of a company with a $30 billion budget making $175,000 – the Governor’s salary – or a top flight lawyer making $141,000 – what a Superior Court judge receives) the same cannot be said of those in the rank and file. Public employees routinely make more than their private sector counterparts and enjoy solid gold pension and benefit plans. The average governmental employee makes more than $50000 per annum, about $3000 more per year than the average private sector employee makes. Obviously, something is wrong with this picture.

None of which to say is that we, as a society, shouldn’t treat those who serve us as governmental employees with respect and pay them reasonably. But, clearly, there shouldn’t be quite so many of them.

Given the punitive tax policies pursued by the Democrats these last four years, it should surprise no one that the greatest job losses came in the highest paying positions. The report notes that in the 1980s and 1990s, New Jersey drove the regional economy. Now, like other high tax, business unfriendly states – New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut – we sit on the sidelines and watch while high paying jobs locate to states with more rational tax policies.

The same report details population change, noting that almost 60,000 Americans more moved out of New Jersey than moved in from the rest of the country. The report notes that

"... if the causes of the sharply increasing net negative internal migration are due to the state’s high cost of living, high taxes, and weakening economic activities, then this is a signal that the state has some fundamental economic problems that require prompt attention."

Just so.

Read together, these two articles demonstrate that, every year, progressively greater numbers of Americans abandon New Jersey for greener – less expensive, lower taxed, less regulated – pastures elsewhere. They take their relatively high paying jobs with them. Apparently, the people who remain behind either go to work for government or want its services. As a result, government continues to expand, hastening the exodus of the very people Jon Corzine wants to tax to fund government’s further expansion.

About the high cost of living, government can do little except attend to its own house. But that’s quite a formidable edifice. We could start by reducing the number of governmental entities, the number of people they employ, and the taxes that support them. Governor Corzine should reconsider his no-lay-offs determination; every department should be returned to its 2000 levels (or, in the unlikely event that those levels were lower than at present, kept where they are) Every County and municipality should, likewise, retrench to their 2000 employment levels.

It insults no hard working public employee to observe that we simply cannot afford that many of them. We got by with 50,000 fewer of them a scant five years ago; we can do that again. At $50K per, cutting 50,000 saves the taxpayers $2.5 billion. Add to that another $1 billion or so in benefits and we’re talking real money, never mind the long term liabilities each employee carries with him.

If nothing else, it’s a good first step toward a rationally sized government.

On the Backs of Our Kids

In politics, it behooves the people to carefully observe what politicians do, rather than giving too much credence to what they say. Would that it were otherwise, but – far too often – the words which issue forth from political mouths bear absolutely no relationship to the actions which follow.

One always hopes that, with each newly elected batch of "representatives", matters will improve. But, alas, experience counsels us toward caution, if not downright cynicism.

Consider: our Governor, speaking to school board officials, actually said:

"We all know that our state faces serious financial challenges that must be addressed -- and addressed now. Passing our problems on to the next generation is not an option. We must find ways to do more with less, and we will have to live with cuts in many of our programs. This will require fiscal responsibility from all of us. But we are not going to balance this budget on the backs of our children."

This while the ink on the Guv’s proposal to bail out the TTF by foisting the costs onto our kids and grandkids is still wet? This while he proposes to indebt our kids to the tune of another $200 million or so on a corporate-welfare-cum-pork proposal for stem cell research centers (conveniently located in Democratic districts)?. This while we anticipate borrowing another $12 billion or so for Abbott school district construction? This while we ignore massive unfunded pension obligations and health benefit promises, the costs of which will be borne by our kids?

Whom, pray tell, does the Governor think he’s kidding?

Democrats figured out long ago that their principles – spending scads of money on preferred constituencies – and pragmatic politics collide around election time. Cutting governmental spending hits powerful Democratic constituencies right between the eyes. But, increasingly, tax increases threaten to actually annoy the complacent population enough to persuade them to get off their duffs and vote – for Republicans. (Whether the sort of Republican who tends to get elected in New Jersey would actually do anything about overspending is an entirely different matter; history offers little basis for optimism there, either.)

But one simply cannot take Corzine’s statements seriously. Over the course of the past four years, the Democrats perfected the art of spending money we don’t have, ignoring our long term obligations, and pushing the consequences off onto people – our kids – who can’t object electorally. Corzine’s very first policy decisions amount to more of the same: flagrant disregard for the long term consequences of present irresponsibility. His TTF and the stem cell proposals amount to nothing less than "balancing the budget on the backs of our children".

Corzine styles himself a "progressive", an ideology defined by its belief that Big Government makes life better by "helping" people. (Sidebar: at my Board of Adjustment meeting last night, a representative from a State economic development agency appeared on behalf of an applicant. Apparently, part of his job involves trying to figure out ways for companies to grow, despite oppressive environmental and preservation regulations. In other words, the state creates hurdles and then employs consultants to help the favored few navigate around them. Full employment for bureaucrats!) But, apparently, he lacks the courage of his convictions. An honest "progressive" would confront the electorate thus:

"In order to provide health insurance for everyone, universal preschool, luxurious public school facilities, a world class public education for every child, "free" or subsidized child care, "free" or subsidized college tuition; in order to underwrite stem cell research, to provide solid gold pensions and benefits to our hard working public employees; to fund arts programs, construct urban parks, preserve farmland, buy open space, build roads, repair bridges, underwrite rail and bus transportation, build affordable housing, support urban governments, and, in short, to do all the things government MUST do, we need to impose a massive tax increase, especially on the "wealthy". The alternative – either to do without some of these services or to massively borrow, sticking our kids with the bill – is unacceptable. So, either fork over 25% (or so) of your income to the state, or move someplace else."

In the interests of fairness, an honest conservative would reply:

"Much of what you posit as appropriate areas for governmental involvement is best left to private folks. Kids, for instance, are best served by their parents, who are capable of determining their best interests and who should, simultaneously, be expected to assume the costs thereof. To the extent that society decides that matters like education are proper subjects for public subsidy, they should be effected in the most cost effective manner possible. Put another way, in the expression "public education", the emphasis should be on "education"; the employer of the teacher and the ownership of the facility are of small moment.

"Too, all the good intentions in the world pale to insignificance if one kills off the economic goose laying the golden eggs. The Delaware makes for a poor boundary; the taxes necessary to underwrite the programs an "honest progressive" favors inevitably drive productive folks and businesses out of state. Already, we see precisely that: the only growth industry in New Jersey right now is government. The people must decide between those programs which are "essential" – homeland security, preservation of transportation infrastructure, etc. – and those which are not.

"Leaving people alone to decide their own destinies for themselves – freedom – produces the greatest good for the greatest number. A government which attempts to do everything inevitably ends up being able to afford to do nothing. We are already well on the road to bankruptcy. People who like socialism should move to Sweden (or Massachusetts)."

And the people get to choose: either pay the astronomical taxes necessary to pay for the services "progressives" think appropriate, or do without those services.

But we need to present the people with honest choices. Heretofore, our Governor’s public pronouncements are anything but.

Admitting Mistakes and Avoiding Repetition

Comes now Assemblyman Joseph Cryan, Chairman of the Democratic State Committee, respecting massive fines assessed against the DSC for campaign reporting violations. Sayeth the Chairman:

"We don't like making mistakes, but when we do we admit to them and learn from them so they won't be repeated."

Admirable sentiments. With much broader application than to campaign reporting violations (the DSC reported millions in contributions and expenditures a mere 457 days after the reports were due). Specifically, to Government.

The Chairman also happens to Chair the Assembly Human Services Committee. This last week, Human Services Commissioner Kevin Ryan testified before the Committee that despite hundreds of millions in additional spending, DYFS appears to have made little progress improving the child welfare system. Actually, the upshot of the testimony appeared to be that despite the huge outlay of taxpayer money, the problems actually worsened, such that the State faces the very real possibility of having its system placed in federal receivership. (About the legal merits of that lawsuit, based upon the oxymoronic concept of "substantive due process", the less said, the better.)

Isn’t this getting a tad old? Over the last four years, we poured billions into urban public school construction, only to be told that the job was "just beginning" (we Legislators were NEVER told that, I can assure you) that the money is all gone, that no one has a clue where it went, and that we will now need to borrow another $12 billion. On the McGreevey-Codey watch, we were told we would "fix" DYFS, only to be told, now, hundreds of millions later, that the problem is worse, that no one has a clue where the money went, and the hundreds of millions more is necessary. Our erstwhile AG’s term in office did little more than provide full employment opportunities in the political corruption section of the US attorney’s office. Important state programs, such as homeland security, became nothing more than fountains of pork, lavished upon Democratic districts.

Nationally, the Dems like nothing more than to use the word "incompetent" when describing the Bush administration. Locally, they should look closer to home.

What better word describes the NJ Administration over the course of the past four years? We find ourselves not on the brink of fiscal catastrophe, but plummeting into the abyss. Pensions costs, health benefit costs, property tax reform, transportation projects, school funding, ALL remain unresolved and, indeed, at crisis stage, and all of which crises were entirely predictable. The Democrats raised EVERY tax, EVERY fee, often being profoundly dishonest in their justifications for same. Unhappy with the resulting billions, they borrowed at an astonishing pace, demonstrating almost breathtaking fiscal irresponsibility. And they lavished goodies upon their friends, exemplified by the former Governor’s hugely irresponsible distribution of taxpayer money on such pressing state projects as the Seton Hall Athletic program. No Administration ever demonstrated more blatant contempt for the hard pressed taxpayers than did the McGreevey-Codey team.

Governor Corzine should take Chairman Cryan’s admonition to heart: admit the mistakes of taxing, borrowing, and spending too much, and don’t make them again.

Alas, the prospects look bleak. The Governor’s very first pronouncement, on the TTF, represents a giant leap backward, handing a debt-anchor to a state barely able to keep its head above water.

The Gov further directed his cabinet officials to prepare for staff and budget cuts of 5, 10, or even 15%. But here’s the prediction:

The Administration will actually prepare such plans, and, perhaps, release them to the public. While they might be "honest", in all likelihood, they will propose the most visible and painful cuts possible. (The first refuge of a local government, facing difficult budget times, is always to cut parks, fire fighters and cops) The resulting outcry from unions (whose members face layoffs), municipalities and school districts (who, except for the privileged Abbott districts, will face aid cuts), arts programs (facing cuts or abolition), etc., will be predictably shrill, the Gov will pronounce those cuts unacceptable in a "progressive" state, and demand large tax increases to keep the governmental gravy train rolling.

I sincerely hope I’m wrong. But I gave McGreevey (and Codey) the benefit of the doubt, and – although I still believe them to be nice enough fellows – their governmental policies were unmitigated disasters. And the Dems haven’t learned their lesson. Despite a bankrupt state, they STILL can’t restrain themselves from fiscally outrageous spending on foolishness like governmentally subsidized stem cell research centers. We simply don’t have the money. And, if we did, we should spend it on crumbling roads, railroads, and bridges – or cutting taxes – not corporate welfare.

It would be nice to see some vision emanating from the Governor’s office; a vision of a freer, more prosperous, less expensive, fiscally responsible, debt-free New Jersey, with a smaller, "competent" government, doing only what it must, but doing it well. Alas, neither history nor our new Governor’s initial pronouncements bode well.