Kudos for the Public Advocate (!)

I voted against the creation of the Public Advocate and would, in an instant, vote to abolish the position again. The idea that the people need such an office strikes me as absurd; they elect 121 public advocates to serve them in Trenton, and countless others on the county and local levels.

And all too often, the Public Advocate has proved to be a public nuisance, bringing baseless suits over such matters as beach access and affordable housing, both of which involve policy questions more appropriate for the Legislature than the Courts.

In the interests of full disclosure, I’ve known the present occupant of the PA office for a quarter century; we attended the Peoples’ Republic of Rutgers Law School together, where he received wonderful grades and I survived. He and I have debated each other (despite his lofty academic achievements, I respectfully contend that I more than held my own) and it probably would not be going to far to consider him a friend.

But even were this not so, Ron Chen’s decision to stand with homeowners threatened with the loss of their property through clearly abusive Eminent Domain proceedings must be applauded, despite the fact that I fear his efforts might be in vain (at least given the present state of the law)

In last year’s Kelo decision, the US Supreme Court conflated the words "public use" and "public purpose". Government clearly possess the right to seize one’s property for "public use" – roads, highways, municipal buildings, even parks and railroads come readily to mind – provided it tenders just compensation therefor. In a particularly arrogant opinion, the Court contended, in effect, that the constitutional language provides insufficient power for government and, citing itself, contended that the meaning of the words had "steadily eroded over time." Now, a mere "public benefit" apparently satisfies the Constitutional language. And, as far as the US Supreme Court is concerned, securing upscale residents constitutes a valid public purpose.

Justice O’Connor and Justice Thomas – especially the latter – wrote scholarly and devastating dissents, making hash of the Court’s reasoning.

But the Court – with the increasingly embarrassing Justice Kennedy casting the deciding vote – read most property protection entirely out of the Constitution. A man’s home is his castle only so long as some developer can’t promise the town higher tax revenues.

(Believers in a "living, breathing Constitution" should find this decision sobering. It might "live and breathe" so as to cost you your house. Assemblywoman Greenstein, please call your office.)

New Jersey’s Constitution is even worse, expressly sanctioning the seizure of private property to address "blight". And, as should be clear, one man’s blight is another man’s homestead.

One Assemblyman recently introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to delete the offending language, offering private property owners protection against property seizure absent a traditional "public use". But until such time as the Legislature becomes as enlightened as this Member, the law provides targeted property owners with scant protection.

Hence, Mr. Chen has his work cut out for him.

But although the office should be abolished, as long as it exists, it should be put to salutary use. In standing up for the true "little guy" who faces the loss of his house to permit construction of luxury condos for millionaires, Ron Chen brings the Department perhaps its finest hour.

The Menedez Plot Thickens ...

Paul Mulshine undertook a little shoe leather journalism to establish more of the facts surrounding the burgeoning scandal surrounding Bob Torricelli’s ... er, Bob Menendez’s ethics, or the want thereof. As mentioned here the other day, it very much appears as if the "Community Service" organization to which Menendez rented his palatial digs paid substantially more than the fair market rent for its use of the premises. The inevitable conclusion at which an impartial observer arrives is that his political pals did the Congressman a favor, using taxpayer dollars he helped them secure to fatten his wallet "legally".

Menendez contends that the transaction was an "arm’s length deal", but given how cozy he was with the folks who ran this entity – he got them federal funds and they sent him tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions – that contention strains credulity. This appears to be something like Honest Graft, right out of Plunkitt of Tammany Hall.

(As a aside, the Dems and ethics appear to be moving further down the road to a complete divorce based upon irreconcilable differences. The papers today report that our assertedly clean Governor made a huge gift to Reginald Jackson -- who, coincidentally, then provided the Guv with a key endorsement -- then delayed reporting it so that it would not appear on his campaign forms in the year he gave it. (It was just a "loan", don’t ya know? Like the "loan" to Carla Katz, which became a half million dollar gift to the person in charge of negotiating union contracts with the man who gave it.))

All of this appears to be the result of fundamentally different perspectives respecting the rationale for governmental service. Tom Kean continues a family tradition of service for its own sake. Just about every Republican in office approaches it the same way; not many rely upon governmental service for their livelihood. To most GOP officeholders, service represents something of a sacrifice; their governmental compensation pales in comparison to their private income. Or, alternatively, they simply don’t need the money.

There is nothing inherently wrong with relying solely upon one’s governmental salary. Scott Garrett, for instance, comes to mind as a man who values service over material advancement. But there’s the rub: governmental service is – or should be – a sacrifice. The salaries and benefits it offers should not compare with those in the private sector, especially on the elected levels. One chooses that career path out of devotion to society, not out of desire for high incomes.

Although the greed-disease does not exclusively infect Democrats, far too many Dems – especially urban Dems – see government as a way to become wealthy. They see government less as an opportunity to serve for the betterment of the community than as a chance to rape the taxpayer for the benefit of themselves and their friends. Once admitted into the inner sanctum, they secure numerous public sector jobs and shower goodies upon themselves, their families, and their friends. It becomes an incestuous mixture, worse by far than the over-hyped "pay to play" nonsense, with a cabal using public funds to enrich its members at public expense, creating "make work" jobs, paying inflated salaries, and, in effect, using taxpayer dollars to run a political machine, as the grateful beneficiaries happily contribute to keep their sugar daddies in office and the taxpayer boodle flowing.

It’s damn sleazy, even when it’s "legal".

Now, I don’t know anything about the real estate market in Hudson County, buy $450,000 for a rowhouse Mulshine referred to as a "dump" on a narrow street in beautiful, upscale Union City seems a tad much. It would be interesting to see who bought it, and whether that was an "arm’s length" transaction, too.

Torch Song Duet

So, let’s see...

Congressman Menendez owns a cozy little place in Hudson County. He secures a tenant, an entity called The North Hudson Community Action Corp. According to the group’s website, it employs 533 people and enjoys a budget of $37 million. Much of that money comes in the form of federal funds, which Congressman Menendez happily helps secure. One site reports that the Pooh Bahs who run this organization haul down $185,000 per annum. (Anything wrong with doing fabulously well while doing good?) Grateful for the Congressman’s assistance, the entity not only pays him rent, but the folks who run the entity pump tens of thousands of dollars into his various campaigns.

Seeing the handwriting on the wall, and figuring that the best defense is a good offense, the Menendez campaign preemptively filed a patently frivolous ethics complaint against Senator Kean, a man so clean he squeaks when he walks.

It’s entirely possible that the Menendez scheme might pass legal muster. Just as Sharpe James probably did nothing illegal when he took numerous trips on the taxpayers’ credit card, to places like Brazil, it may be that Menendez securing the money for the entity, which it used to pay him rent and fund his campaigns violates no law.

But it stinks.

Anytime a politician prospers while in office – especially from people in positions to benefit from his influence or largesse – alarm bells sound. Mayors shouldn’t be able to afford yachts and Rolls Royces. The law firm of a State Senator should not receive contracts from entities for which the Senator secured funding. And when a Congressman enjoys a business relationship with a group, it’s simply unconscionable for that Member to secure taxpayer funding for the group.

Consider the way the Dems treat Haliburton. Whenever it secures a contract for anything, the Dems scream that Dick Cheney’s influence must be behind it, despite the fact that he receives no benefit whatsoever from Halliburton anymore. If Kean, in the State Senate, voted to benefit a company in which he held stock, Menendez would crucify him – and justifiably so.

The Congressman secures federal funds, a portion of which flows back into his pocket. (It will be interesting to see, as this story develops – as it most certainly will – whether the rent paid was comparable to other, similar local sites) The very highly paid folks who run this assertedly charitable entity funnel tens of thousands back into the Menendez campaigns. If all this is true – given the mutual-back-scratching-with-taxpayer-dollars nature of urban politics in general and Democrats in Hudson County in particular, it has the ring of truth to it – it constitutes one of those rare ethical scandals which might actually have legs.

But I seem to recall being down this road before: ethically challenged Dem secures his Party’s nomination for the Senate; his grievous ethical lapses start catching up with him; the Party Pooh Bahs pull the plug, with the assistance of an illiterate and innumerate Supreme Court.

Keep your eyes on the polls. If Menendez falters, figure Dick Codey in a 60 day campaign?

The Courage to Talk

Several years ago, supporting a budget which increased state spending by a whopping 17%, Lou Greenwald, the Democratic Chairman of the Budget Committee, rose on the floor of the Assembly, exhorting his sleepy colleagues (it was about 3 AM) to find "the courage to spend".

To all appearances, the Democrats never wanted for "courage" when it came time to spend other people’s money. Of late, they’ve even developed the "courage to tax", increasing every tax imaginable over the past five years, solidifying New Jersey’s unfortunate status as the most heavily taxed state in the nation.

Given their history, it’s difficult to take Democratic professions of concern over high taxes as anything more than rhetoric. Recall a few years back, when Governor Codey assumed the podium before the assembled State pooh-bahs to deliver the State of the State. The outlook, Hizonor proclaimed, was bleak. Codey observed that the state was broke, noted that the ever increasing costs of public pensions and benefits threaten fiscal disaster, and, akin perhaps to Bill Clinton, contended that the era of Big Government is over.

And, then, having accurately described the issues confronting the State, Codey did precisely nothing to address them, and rode that inaction to a crest of public popularity.

Alas, it appears that the lesson the Dems learned from Codey’s experience is that if they openly and honestly admit the existence of an undeniable problem, their popularity soars, despite blithely continuing exactly the same policies which produced the crisis in the first instance. The majority makes headlines daily, receiving a media bye, for having the "courage to talk".

But, heretofore, they have demonstrated absolutely no courage to act.

A cynic -- and I know one -- might assert that it’s all well choreographed political theater. Having gone through the exercise of talking about the problem, and entertaining the fiction that spending might actually be cut, (even sending Senator Sweeney out to encourage the view that curtailing outrageous public sector benefits is thinkable) the Dems will (with expressions of heartfelt sorrow) conclude that virtually every nickel of spending must be preserved (perhaps with some window dressing "cuts"), necessitating a large income tax increase on those "rich" folks making $50,000 per year or so. The Guv, despite his oft-stated aversion to income tax hikes, will cluck that he was forced into it by the Legislature.

Are the Dems serious about even considering spending cuts? Recollect that the constitutional convention proposal which passed the Assembly last term expressly forbade any consideration of spending cuts, despite the Majority’s oft-repeated contention that "everything was on the table". If cutting spending is the price which must be paid for property tax reform and relief -- and it is -- that’s a price the Dems have repeatedly been unwilling to even consider. If history is any example, their present willingness to talk simply represents grist for the media, providing cover for the inevitable income tax hikes on those misbegotten "rich" when no other "solutions" can be effected.

To reiterate, any property tax reform package which receives anything other than the undying enmity of the NJEA, the CWA, urban schools, and other assorted Spending Interests simply isn’t worth fussing over.

Talk is great; it’s taken five years to get the Dems to even permit a discussion on the subject. And an honest discussion it might yet turn out to be. But, ultimately, property tax reform/relief can only be achieved by substantial spending cuts. Those cuts will inevitably strike at the heart of the Democratic constituencies among public sector unions and urban districts. I remain persuaded that forced to choose between providing real property tax reform/relief, and maintaining the massive spending status quo, the Dems will opt for the latter.

I hope they prove me wrong, but it simply strikes me that if they were serious about property tax reform, they’d be Republicans.

Military Solutions and Moderation

Come now various and sundry assembled deep thinkers, writers, artists, etc., penning a declaration to The New York Times, decrying warfare in the middle east, urging an end to "military solutions". They lament the fact that "moderation in the struggle is perceived as weakness".

Oh? What is the "moderate" response to an entity like Hezbollah (the "Party of God"; the mother of all misnomers), which refers to Israel as a cancer to be exterminated? (A thought reiterated by the Iranian President the other day) How does one respond "moderately" when people walk into restaurants or board buses, carrying bombs designed to murder massive numbers of civilians? What is the "moderate" response to Bin Laden?

All things considered, I prefer the response the American Air Force sent Al-Zarqawi. Nothing subtle; impossible to miss the point. After all, if "moderation" worked, Hezbollah would have withered when Israel retreated from Lebanon years ago. Instead, it grew in numbers, sophistication, and murderous belligerence.

Which brings us back to the heartfelt writing of the assembled sages.

Gandhi succeeded only because he contested against a civilized opponent. Movements like his, directed at the Soviets, the Nazis, or the Chinese, produce the Gulag, Auschwitz, and Tiananmen Square. Diplomacy only works when both sides respect common standards of decency. You simply can’t negotiate with someone with a passionate desire to massacre your children. (As was demonstrated in Iraq just the other day, when these nice fellows planted a bomb on a soccer field where children were playing.) Perhaps these avatars of civilization simply can't fathom that people actually hold such uncivilized thoughts.

Consider the Japanese fighting code in World War II, which produced massive casualties among innocent civilians, was exemplified by the brutal treatment of prisoners, and found its clearest expression in Kamikaze pilots. American leadership, faced with that kind of nutty fanaticism, steeled itself to the requirement of taking the casualties necessary to extirpate that idea, root and branch, and to transform Japanese society into one which could hardly imagine ever having held it.

A substantial number of folks, mostly Islamacists, have become devotees of a homicidal, indeed genocidal ideology, for which they willing sacrifice themselves to murder innocents. No alternative to a "military solution" exists (absent a sudden outbreak of sanity among the nutjobs in the Middle East). And only one outcome is acceptable, from the perspective of the United States, Israel, and civilization.

Given our druthers, America and Israel would – tomorrow – delightedly consign our entire militaries to museums. Tanks and planes consume huge sums better spent on massive tax cuts, never mind the irreplaceable lives of our young men and women we often ask them to sacrifice for us.

Unlike our adversaries, we do not burn with a passionate desire to beat children’s brains out with rifle butts. We won’t be driving airliners into buildings in their countries any time soon. We modify our weapons to minimize civilian casualties; they modify theirs to produce the greatest possible number of dead babies. When we kill, we do so reluctantly, and grieve at be compelled to do so; they celebrate and dance on the bodies.

America and Israel ask simply to be left alone in a world in which people can life peaceful lives in freedom. To our adversaries, our very existence constitutes a reason for killing.

"Moderation" in the face of THAT? It’s akin to standing in the wreckage of the Trade Center and equally enjoining both the victims and the perps, "that’s enough of that".

One cannot be neutral, or "moderate", in such a struggle. It’s not merely a case of "he started it", but "he started in now; he started it before; he’s pledged to start it again; and he’s arming to the teeth to kill my kids."

Bad people – evil people – really exist. They own guns and rockets and tanks. They are pointing those guns and rockets and tanks at the good guys – that is to say, us. They are pulling the trigger and killing our kids. If that isn’t reason enough for a "military solution", what is?

The good guys suffer much rather than resort to military solutions. The provocation must be great. How many nations around the world would be better places after a visit from the 101st Airborne? How many tinpot dictators lording over populations of miserable serfs might find a more suitable position courtesy of the US Marines? And, yet, we withhold. Perhaps, in the face of all-too-common evil, we should stand prepared to speak more often in the only language evil understands.

The Middle East will one day be populated by free, prosperous, civilized men, lacking the blinding hatreds and maniacal fanaticism which characterize the region today. Like present day citizens of Japan and Germany, those folks will look back with amazement at the actions and beliefs of their ancestors. But just as it took a "military solution" to bring Germany and Japan into the civilized world – and a clear willingness to do the same finally brought the Soviets to ground – the same will be necessary for the Middle East.

We – the good guys – fight in Iraq, fight in Lebanon, fight in Afghanistan, and look reluctantly toward North Korea and Iran not because we want to, but because we must. The consequences of "moderation" can be seen in lower Manhattan. No one wants war, but if one clearly needs to be fought, let’s get about fighting it and winning it. If fanatics burn with a passion to die for their cause or their god, we should oblige them. Every day of delay permits the forces of evil to grow stronger. As Israel learned, when it bent to world opinion, acted "moderately" and left Lebanon (and Gaza), the bad guys only moved their rockets and bombs closer. And bought more of them. They surrendered not a ounce of their malice.

During WW II, the Japanese essentially pledged to fight to the last man. The only way to defeat them was to prove that, if such was the price they were willing to pay, we were willing to exact it to win. Eventually, they came around to our point of view, but not until our resolve was clear and it became apparent that absolutely nothing would remain of Japan if she continued to fight.

Liberty will advance, country by country, around the world. Peacefully, when possible, but through all necessary means. The forces of freedom will exact the price that our intractable adversaries claim to be willing to pay. The result will be the same: peace and freedom. They can participate, either as free men, living peaceably, or as combat fatalities. But we should reiterate, as one of our greatest presidents said:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

If ever there comes a time when we are not willing to pay that price, on that day will liberty end.

Home Rule

Discussing property taxes, it’s always important to recall that high taxes are a symptom, not the disease. Spending is the problem and the only way to control taxes is to cut – and limit – spending: local, county, and state.

That having been said, a majority in a particular community might wish to spend more than their counterparts in another town. The solution is to accommodate both: let localities set their priorities and give them the power to effect them, without "state" assistance or mandates.

The goal of property tax "reform" measures should NOT be to ensure property tax cuts, but, rather, to ensure that the people of each municipality can write their own destiny.

Put another way, if (say) Newark imposes high property taxes, that’s a matter of the utmost unconcern to folks in (say) East Orange. Newark should impose the tax burden its Governing Body deems appropriate to fund the sort of government it believes necessary, and that its residents can afford. Elections exist to correct mistakes local officials make in gauging the desires of their constituents.

The purpose of a true property tax reform program should be to ensure that the people, through local elections, can truly decide for themselves how, and how much, to tax, and how much to spend.

Instead of condemning "home rule", we should strengthen it, albeit, perhaps, with a somewhat different definition of "home", through voluntary mergers, about which more later. Municipalities should attend to municipal concerns, like education. The counties – if we decide to continue their existence – to county concerns. And the State to its own bailiwick. There should be no mixture -- aid from the state to localities. Each entity should be on its own, with its own resources, its own sources of revenue, and its own responsibilities.

Of course, this requires some tolerance of inequality; some "rich" municipalities will be able to afford more governmental services with lower taxes than their "poor" counterparts. But it should offend noone that Madison can afford to spend more than can Irvington, anymore than it offends us that New Jersey can afford to spend more than Mississippi, or the US more than Mexico. Or that some parents can lavish goodies upon their kids, while the rest of us can’t. Such is the nature of life, and of lines on a map.

The ideal solution to the property tax crises would be a three step process. First, effect as many voluntary municipal mergers as possible, subsidizing the process sufficiently to help assure passage of most of the referenda. (Result: instead of 39 Morris County municipalities, end up with between 8 and ten) Consolidate all local power in one Governing Body, abolishing all other local sources of power, and eliminate virtually all state mandates respecting tenure, pay, pensions, benefits, and the like.

Second, divide governmental responsibility among local, county (if retained), and state; absolutely forbid pork or subsidies. Abolish the state income tax, permitting municipalities to replace it with a locally enacted levy. Alternatively, if one desires to retain some redistributionist elements, adopt a flat rate income tax, using the proceeds to fund equal vouchers to every child in the state.

Third, provide for sustainability, by limiting the political influence of groups which benefit from high taxes, and by evicting the Courts from taxing/spending decisions.

The ultimate effect of such a system would be to ensure political responsibility – the same folks who benefit from the spending pay the taxes which sustain it, ending existing incentives for profligacy. Too, it permits municipalities to tailor their taxation and spending to meet local needs and reflect local reality. A local option income tax, for instance, permits municipalities to choose the mix of taxes which best suits their individual needs, while ensuring that they cannot foist the consequences of irresponsible spending onto the backs of neighbors, who lack a voice – and a vote – in local politics.

Put simply, no political entity should be permitted to spend money unless its own constituents pay the underlying taxes.

Over time, different community patterns would develop. Some municipalities would spend more, some less. Some would impose relatively higher property taxes, others relatively higher income taxes. Dissatisfied residents could vote with their feet as well as with their ballots, except, now, they could find another municipality in New Jersey which meets their needs, rather than fleeing to Pennsylvania.

For those who complain that "poor" municipalities would suffer, such would certainly not be the case with a voucher program; every child would be treated equally. But, just as importantly, "poor" municipalities are not doomed to stay that way, any more than a poor person need spend his life in poverty. See, for instance, Hoboken.

Intelligent municipal government – one which keeps order, keeps taxes low, encourages community spirit (as, for instance, by encouraging volunteering services rather than using expensive, paid employees) – can turn a "poor" municipality around.

Certainly, spending cuts will inevitably affect many people adversely, primarily governmental employees. They might make less, will work more, and will certainly receive less attractive benefits. And they will be precluded from (direct) political action to secure a better deal. But the choice is simple; someone must sacrifice if taxes are to be cut. Given that the vast bulk of governmental spending goes to salaries and benefits, the only way to reduce taxes is to cut employee costs.

Ultimately, that obligation will fall on local officials. As it should. Freed from expensive state mandates, and provided with the means to effect their responsibilities, local government will do that which it does best: meet local needs. And the electorate of each municipality will hold their local officials accountable for the choices they make.

Sustainability

As the Legislature prepares to address property taxes, let us jump ahead a bit and assume initial success. That is, assume that, by some miracle, the Legislature musters the political courage to actually cut spending – especially in urban areas – in a manner sufficient to reduce property taxes by (say) 30% or so.

On the day after the Legislature enacts such "reform", the folks who benefit from high spending and high taxes will commence a campaign to undermine it.

Previous attempts to slay the property tax monster failed because they concentrated on replacing property tax revenues with other taxes. This inevitably undercut the incentive for frugality, because the folks spending the money – and benefitting from such spending – were not the same folks as those who collected – or paid – the taxes.

Consider Newark: it raises an infinitesimal amount of the money it spends on itself. What possible incentive do the politicians or voters in Newark have to be frugal? They’re spending other people’s money. Why would the Newark electorate care what the Mayor or Council pay themselves, for instance? Morris County taxpayers pick up the tab. Indeed, present policy creates absurd incentives for Newark voters; since they pay almost none of the taxes which support the massive City governmental edifice, voting in favor of massive spending makes sense.

Or consider public employees. Often, what they cannot obtain at the bargaining table, they obtain legislatively. While public employees are not evil, their interests diverge substantially from those of their neighbors. Given the choice between higher taxes on everyone, and a pay or benefit cut, which hits them personally, their self interest dictates a vote against the common good.

In real life, we sometimes call this a "conflict of interest".

For any property tax reform measure to succeed, it must be "sustainable"; that is, immune from being immediately undercut by powerful spending interests.

Put another way, if taxes are to be kept low – at any level – the special interests which work to increase them must be defanged.

Governor Corzine sang the praises of audits during his recent speech, but the most effective audit is an election. But elections only work if the voters can wreak electoral revenge upon those who ignore their desires. Hence, sustainability requires political responsibility. Elections must be real and meaningful; lines of responsibility must be clear. And powerful spending interests must not be permitted to wield undue influence.

Evicting the CWA and NJEA from politics constitutes a necessary step toward sustainability. As has been amply demonstrated by the comments of The Guv’s ex-girlfriend, these entities will adamantly oppose meaningful property tax reform measures. A state-level Hatch act – a prohibition against partisan political involvement by governmental employees – is a necessary first step. And no public employee should be permitted to hold any political office.

Second, not only should ALL elections be in November, as the Governor implied, but all local power should be consolidated in the Governing Body. Boards of Education should be eliminated entirely. The Governing Body should hire a superintendent, who hires the principals, who hire the teachers. No one gets tenure; if anyone fails to do the job, out they go on their keister. If the electorate disagrees with the way the Governing Body handles its assigned duties, it can get revenge at the ballot box.

And, finally, once we redefine home rule by redefining home, the state needs to step back and ensure that the localities have the rope to hang themselves, if they want to. Some folks might actually WANT high taxes, if the alternative is (say) bigger class size. Why not let municipalities set their own course? If – say – Montclair wishes to tax the daylights out of its residents to support a socialist utopia, that should be a community decision. People who don’t like it, and can’t win elections, can move to Morris County. They’d be welcome.