Oroho to Morris County: Drop Dead

I’ve never been a particular fan of parochialism within a particular legislative district. That is, why should (say) Parsippany care if one of the 26th District representatives hails from there? Any representative who favored one section of the district at the expense of others, one town (or County) over another, deserves brickbats from those among the less favored of his constituents. Each legislative district – despite being composed of multiple municipalities or counties – is one district, with one team of representatives. It simply does not do for a representative to play favorites.

For instance, can one imagine the completely justifiable opprobrium which would be hurled at (soon to be) Senator Joe if he asserted that he didn’t care about the Passaic County portion of his district, intending to represent only Morris? Or if Tom Kean or Kip Bateman refused to take the calls of their Morris County constituents? Can anyone believe that Tony Bucco favors Boonton’s interests over Morris Township’s?

Comes now "Sussex County" Freeholder Steve Oroho, seeking a Senate seat in a district encompassing three Counties, crassly appealing to Sussex County parochialism, averring that Sussex County residents stand to lose $1.5 billion if THEIR (his emphasis) seat in the Senate goes to a Washington Township (Morris County) resident.

Normally, I take little – personal – interest in out of district races, except to lament the somewhat intemperate tone of Republican primaries of late. Nonetheless, when I see a whopper like this one, in which a candidate, in effect, tells a good portion of the people he presumes to represent, to drop dead, that he doesn’t intend to serve their interests because they’re not from his County, that simply crosses the line. Instead of extolling his own virtues, or castigating his adversary for his perceived failings, he divides the party faithful by county line. That’s pernicious.

First, our friendly candidate can’t count, averring that "Morris County already has 5 Senators". Morris County has precisely two resident Senators: Tony Bucco and Bob Martin. Only if one counts Sussex County resident Bob Littell (as, incidentally, I do; despite his residence in Sussex, he has ALWAYS served his Morris County constituents with vigor and I never once heard him say that he valued his Sussex County constituents more) as well as Somerset’s Walter Kavanaugh and Union’s Tom Kean can one conclude that Morris has "five" Senators.

The piece goes on to assert that only the fact that Littell lives in Sussex produced $1.5 billion in state projects for that county. Oh? First, the implication – that being a Senator is all about delivering pork home to the district – should concern every fiscal conservative; such is precisely the mindset of the Trenton Democrats with whom, presumably, a Senator from either Morris County or Sussex County would have profound differences. Second, ANY representative would ensure that his/her district is not deliberately excluded from otherwise generally applicable state programs, such as open space, historic preservation, etc. The mark of any good representative from Sussex County – which, like Morris, pays a grossly disproportionate share of State taxes, and receives a mere pittance is return – is not what he brings back, but what he prevents from leaving in the first instance.

The assertion that if Sussex County voters elect a "Morris County politician" (first time I’ve ever heard that term employed as an epithet; what are we, from Hudson?) Sussex County residents lose out, is preposterous. It’s akin to asserting that Bergen County residents should refuse to support Scott Garrett, based wholly upon his address.

Now, the necessary reciprocal of this assertion is that Oroho sees his prospective position as representing Sussex County voters, not those of Morris or Hunterdon. From a strictly self-interested perspective, if he can persuade Sussex County residents to vote on addresses, he wins. And he can apologize to the balance of his new constituents later on, laughing all the way to the State House. ‘Cause he didn’t really mean to imply that he considered them irrelevant, mind you. (Can’t help but wonder if he’s received any money from "Morris County politicians".) Funny. I didn’t hear of him making any statements, when in Morris County the other evening, to the effect that he intended to represent Sussex County, and that us "Morris County politicians" should support someone else.

True, people say and do silly things during campaigns and crass appeals to destructive parochialism probably won’t cause irreparable rifts in the Party. But the last thing we need is for Republicans in Northwestern NJ creating regional schisms in the Party. I venture a guess that Freeholder Oroho and Assemblyman Gregg would cast almost identical votes if elected to the Senate. Their differences would likely prove incremental at best. I support Assemblyman Gregg due to his record as a pro-freedom, proven tax cutter, fiscal conservative, and friend of business; the taxpayers – even those in Sussex County – have no greater friend in Trenton than Guy Gregg.

With the exception of me.

Should Freeholder Oroho become Senator Oroho, I’m certain that he will represent ALL of his constituents without parochial favoritism, that he will not ignore his Morris and Hunterdon County towns. He should, I respectfully contend, abjure campaign statements and strategies which inevitably tend to consign some elements of the district to second-class status. Sussex would be as well served by a conservative Senator from Califon as a it would be by a conservative Senator from Newton. Qualified candidates should not be shunned because of something as irrelevant as their residence.

Sad History

As something of a history buff, it depresses me, somewhat, that most of my fellow citizens betray little interest, and no passion, for matters past.

Then again, they also display little interest and – with notable exceptions – little passion, for matters political. This alarms me even more, as our freedom depends upon our willingness to become educated and to cast pro-freedom votes. Indeed, I aver the inextricable connection between historical knowledge and freedom; unless we know where we’ve been and how we got there, we can’t know where we are or where we’re going.

History informs all other aspects of life. Whether that history be social – how did people interact? – military – what did men sacrifice for freedom? – of even industrial – how was our modern economy and environment shaped? – a free, informed people need to understand it. In some cases, preserving vestiges of the past, as a reminder of the road traveled heretofore, serves the purpose of greatly informing the present. Obviously, not every old structure, or notable location, warrants perpetual preservation. But, certainly, some exemplars of past events deserve protection and promotion.

New Jersey, generally, does a lousy job at this.

Recently, I ventured to points south, to join similarly inclined folks – including a few thousand heavily armed men (and a few women) – at a North South Skirmish Association shoot in Winchester, VA. Southerners – even Virginians – take their history, and especially their Civil War history – more seriously than we do. The entire Shenandoah Valley brims with signs, markers, maps, and the like, to guide an interested visitor to the various sites of note. And we’re not talking strictly national parks; New Market – the site of a modest battle and, this last weekend, an enormous reenactment encampment – is a state park.

But, obviously, someone there possesses the requisite vision to make history attractive to the public, even if that requires a gimmick.

We also visited Harpers Ferry and the Queen Mother of all historic sites: Gettysburg. Both are National Parks, of course, but both might serve as exemplars for how NJ might better interest its residents in their unique and fascinating history.

While certainly not a battlefield, Paterson serves as an example of what might be, and an abject lesson about the patent failures of NJ government, on all levels.

Last year, I visited the Princeton battlefield, and found it underwhelming. The signage and interpretation were poor, the maintenance spotty. But compared to Paterson, it represents a crown jewel.

This past weekend, never having visited Great Falls before, the family and I embarked on the short journey to scenic Paterson to view one of what should be NJ’s great attractions.

We shoulda oughta stayed at home.

What a disaster.

Now, transforming a present and past industrial site into a tourist Mecca requires no little imagination. Paterson will never be mistaken for Allaire or Sturbridge. But it might, at least, perform the basic service of putting up a sign.

Well, actually, it did. During our short trip, we saw several newish signs, each bearing the name of the Mayor – Jose "Joey" Torres. I doubt the signs cost too much money, but whatever the municipality spends to put its Mayor’s name on every public facility is too much.

The parking lot looks as if it were last paved before Alexander Hamilton – a statue of whom overlooks the falls – met Aaron Burr. Oh, another sign proclaims the pending construction of an amphitheater on site, a wonderful addition, no doubt, but given the choice between – say – picking up the litter and building such a structure, it seems that simple maintenance comes first.

A pedestrian walk along old mill races might be attractive -- were the slightest attention paid to maintenance: they are silting up, covered in litter and goose dung, and crossing the street to get there takes one’s life in one’s hands. The walkways over the falls are unmarked, "painted" a tasteful shade of brown (in those few areas where the public spirited residents haven’t "tagged" them), and the "lawns" amount to nothing more than unmown, litter strewn messes. The pathways -- again unmarked, last saw a rake long ago.

Now, I’m certain that Mayor Torres – having ensured that the signs all spell his name right – has many important functions to administer. And amphitheaters probably look better on a political resume than litter control. But wouldn’t it be a good municipal, county, and state strategy to make one of NJ’s greatest natural beauties – industrialization notwithstanding – an attractive, desirable destination?

Morris County, for instance, puts non-violent offenders to work picking up litter, etc., in a program called SLAP; would not Paterson benefit from the attention of those seeking to contribute to the common good while paying their debt to society? An "adopt a park" sign appears over the mill race walkway; these adoptive parents ought to be sued for gross neglect of their charge. Could not the spirit of volunteerism be harnessed – say in the public schools, which spend at least $16,000 per kid – perhaps on Earth Day or some such, encouraging them to make their City a better place to live and visit? After all, not every problem requires money to solve.

Our industrial heritage will never match our Revolutionary heritage in pizzazz; the reenactment of the Battle of Monmouth will attract more interest than an elderly factory. But if people get their history while out for a pleasant walk along a clean path in a well maintained park, all the better. Combine the history with the natural beauty of the river and the Falls.

It wouldn’t take much to make Great Falls into a destination to anticipate rather than an eyesore to avoid. Alas, Paterson, Passaic County, and the State seem insufficient to the challenge.

Pigs in (Open) Space

Hizonor advises the Legislature that he will not support a proposal to extend the Garden State Preservation Trust in the absence of legislative enactment of some form of "monetization" proposal for State assets, such as the lottery or toll roads. The Governor explains his opposition on the grounds that supporting the proposal in its present form would put the State further into debt.

At once, he’s absolutely correct and horribly wrong.

The amount of money being sought for open space preservation is, in the context of a bloated State budget, very small. But instead of simply spending current tax receipts to effect open space purchases, the proposal – yet again – calls for the State to issue bonds, underwritten by the sales tax revenue. As I read the proposal, we’d get 10 years of open space purchases and 30 years of debt repayment.

Unless one believes that all desirable open space will disappear in 10 years, the inevitable consequence of such a proposal will be that, ten years hence, when the fund runs out of money, "environmentalists" will be back, asking for more money – and, probably, more borrowing.

This is precisely the sort of nonsense that got the Transportation Trust Fund in trouble. Instead of pay-as-you-go projects, politicians front-load the benefits and rear-load the costs. They design the programs to go bankrupt, such that the entirety of the dedicated tax collections end up paying off the bonds. And, just as transportation projects don’t magically end after a specified period, neither will open space/historic preservation projects.

Hence, the Governor hits the mark precisely when he avers that more State debt is not the answer. A straight dedication of $175 million per year from sales tax revenue makes sense. Permitting additional borrowing does not.

But, inexplicably, the Governor then offers his support for open space preservation projects with backhanded borrowing, aka "monetization".

There exists no substantive difference between selling off the Turnpike, thereby foregoing future revenues (assuming one forgets about the promises to abolish tolls along some of these roads), and simply issuing bonds against the anticipated revenue. The result is precisely the same: put large amounts of money in the hands of today’s politicians while sticking future generations with the bill.

Assuming that consensus exists that farmland/open space/historic preservation projects make the State a better, less congested place in which to live, preserve quality of life, etc., we, the people, should be willing to attend to the costs of that undertaking NOW. As with transportation projects, set aside, each and every budget year, a certain amount to be used for such projects.

And, just as important, it’s vital that such programs not form yet another pot of money out of which to fund urban pork.

State open space funding should be spent on projects of State interest. Unfortunately, each year, tens of millions of scarce dollars find their way into making improvements in urban parks: building ball fields, adding walkways, etc. All of which may be very nice indeed, but none of which are really State interests and none of which contribute in the least to open space preservation. Indeed, just last year, millions of dollars was siphoned off from one open space fund to balance the municipal budget in Newark.

If a locality wishes to improve a local park, such is a matter meriting the attention of local taxpayers, not the State. At a time when environmentalists claim we’re losing thousands of pristine acres of land per year, which might have been preserved with adequate state funding, employing a single nickel for pork is inexcusable.

Reference to A-3675 demonstrates the colossal misallocation of funds we endorse every year; almost $40 million of scarce dollars spent of local pork ... er, park improvements. Every single one of those projects probably makes sense. Locally. Not one of the projects has the slightest statewide importance. If Bloomfield wants to improve a skate park for local residents, God bless. But it’s simply not a project that merits ANY state funds. If Ventnor wishes to renovate its fishing pier, great. But as between that purely local benefit, and preserving fast disappearing farmland – which benefits every State resident – the choice should be clear.

Of course, many representatives of urban areas see things parochially and would, given their druthers, make things exponentially worse. Consider A-1351, sponsored by Assemblywoman Watson-Coleman, which would, if enacted, divert even more money from crucial open space preservation into urban pork projects. Apparently, representatives of urban areas simply fail to understand that preserving land in Warren County benefits the entire State, not just that County. And that if the cost of preserving a farm in Hunterdon means that the local taxpayers in Trenton need to attend to the costs of their own ballfields, that’s a price we, as a State, should be willing to make them pay.

Much of the populace apparently supports the proposal at hand out of the misinformed view that it exclusively preserves open space. They fail to realize that a huge amount of borrowing and spending, peddled to the people under the guise of preserving open space, finds its way into projects which preserve not one square inch of open space.

We could certainly use some gubernatorial leadership on this subject, so as to fundamentally reform the way the state doles out open space dollars. Sure, dedicate $175 million per annum, but borrow not one thin dime. And ensure that EVERY scarce dollar finds its way to worthy, substantive projects of statewide importance, and that not one penny is used for local pork.

Father Jim

The papers report that Hizonor, Jim McGreevey, having been compelled to resign the highest office in New Jersey -- ostensibly due to his gay relationship -- now desires to pursue a position in which such predilections, apparently, present little concern: priest.

McGreevey’s stated motivations for leaving office remain highly dubious. Given that his opinion polls looked better the day after he left than the day before, and given the abysmally low standards for behavior in office set by (say) Bill Clinton, the idea that a man who spent his entire life aspiring to the Governorship would permit a mere personal pecadillo to force his resignation rings very hollow. Most people, justifiably, don’t care much what their public officials do between the sheets (unless they’re Republicans, in which case they stand accused of hypocrisy, a greater offense in modern sexual politics than deviations from the asserted norm) and although McGreevey clearly would have been subjected to JibJab-style ribbing, he could easily have survived that "scandal" -- at least, with the electorate.

So, now, Father Jim would purport to address the spiritual needs of a congregation. Who knows? He might be good at it. It might prove interesting to see how his faith informs his homilies.

At least on one level, McGreevey – a hopeless leftist who described his own rhetoric as "Bolshevik" – would clearly make a better priest than he did a Governor. Because if priests -- to the extent that they concern themselves with the Earthly realm -- preach a "social gospel", as it were, they still lack the power to INSIST that other folks follow their peculiar policy predilections. In power, leftists lack any such restraint, refusing to draw a distinction between that which one should do (perhaps under threat of eternal damnation), and that which one must do, under the very real threat of being hauled off in handcuffs.

Priests appeal to the better angels of our nature, properly exhorting us to be our brothers’ keeper. They employ persuasion, perhaps even shame, to convince their congregants to act as they believe Jesus (in the case of an Episcopalian) wishes them to act: ministering to the sick, the lame, the halt, the blind, the poor, etc. The faithful, perhaps moved by the power of the preacher’s words, often willingly sacrifice for the benefit of those to whom life has been less kind. Such, obviously, is the nature of charity.

Alas, the Left, in power, employs the same rhetoric, but removes one essential element required in any act of charity: choice. (There is more than a little irony in the fact that the Party which so strongly asserts its devotion to "choice" advocates its denial in essentially every area, save one.)

Confronted by the preacher’s admonitions, the parishioner looks down at his checkbook and assesses his ability to assist the less fortunate. If (say) his kids orthodontic bill is due, he may give less than he might at a time when feeling somewhat more flush.

When the State decides that it should undertake those charitable undertakings, the tax collector doesn’t want to hear that your own kid’s tuition is past due; he demands your money, placing the asserted needs of the beneficiaries (and, of course, the needs of the handsomely paid public employees who administer those programs instead of the volunteer priests and nuns of old) ahead of your own family’s needs and desires.

All things considered, I want my priest to be a social liberal. I want him urging, cajoling, begging, the congregation toward greater sacrifice for the good of the less fortunate. Indeed, I want him to administer those programs himself, as he’ll do it because he should, not because it’s a living, with more of the contribution serving the beneficiary than the employees of the charity (or government).

But I don’t want my priests with the power to insist upon my acting as they believe appropriate. One might prefer to spend one’s money on oneself, one’s kids, or whatever. One might believe that the priest asks too much from the donor and not enough from the people he contends we should be assisting. One might believe that money should be spent educating kids rather than helping drug addicts – both, perhaps, worthy causes, but each of us is entitled to our own priorities. And one might believe that the level of sacrifice the priests suggests – while, perhaps, appropriate for a priest – is simply too much. Try making that argument to the tax collector.

So, I’ll be happy to listen to Father Jim preach; I might even agree with some of his goals and work with him – consistent with my abilities – to fund those voluntary programs. But, I submit, society will be much better served by Father Jim preaching – and asking – than it is by Governor Jim –or Jon – demanding. As a priest, Father Jim might serve both the cause of the poor and freedom; as an elected official, like all leftists, he was a disaster for both.

Sweet Victory

Last week, the Democrats pulled off what most folks consider a major political upset: they won a Township Committee seat in my own home town of Morris Township. And they did it in fairly decisive fashion. What does this portend for our fair hamlet, for our county, and for the State?

There are essentially two kinds of Democrat: the "progressive", BlueJersey.com True Believing Liberals – who really like government (the bigger, the better) – and the folks who will get to work for that government (or get checks from it) if the BlueJersey guys succeed.

Morris Township has been trending bluer for many years now. Of old, we ran a sort of sleepy little burg, boasting among the low taxes in the County – which, in Morris County, is saying quite a bit.

But, with the inexorable growth, we welcomed a large number of new arrivals, often refugees from Hudson, Essex, and other urbanized, Democratic-controlled areas, who, apparently, wax nostalgic for the Auld Sod, and bring machine habits with them. Demonstrative of this is the presence in the County of Joe Cryan – the avatar of machine politics – on election day.

The Dems ran a great campaign. They identified their voters – again, movement liberals and those who profit from larger, more expensive government – and made sure those people got to the polls. They understood that, in politics, majorities don’t matter; motivation matters. Many, if not most people don’t vote; they find government and politics boring and simply can’t be bothered, certainly not sufficiently to take an active interest in educating themselves about the issues. To Democratic constituencies, elections are not about esoteric "issues"; they’re meal tickets.

Consider how many public employees populate the ranks of Democratic legislators; these guys depend upon government for their living. Losing an election is not a mere inconvenience, which sends them back to their real world jobs, but a personal disaster, which means they don’t eat.

THAT concentrates one’s mind wonderfully. Those feeding at the public trough are ALWAYS more motivated than those obliged to fill it.

Put another way, consider that, in Morris Township, if the police union – which, breaking with tradition, endorsed the Democratic candidate – wins a fat contract, the average taxpayer might see an increase of (say) $100 bucks. But the average cop may see thousands. Which person is likely to bring more passion and devotion to a campaign in which police pay and benefits is an issue?

Low turnout elections – which is to say, just about every election, most especially special elections – play right into the Dems’ strengths, as they are the party of government. Sure, many public-spirited public employees support Republicans – those true to their calling, who consider their neighbors’ best interests as well as their own – but, on balance, Republicans support lower taxes, Democrats higher spending. Democrats on the state level NEVER talk about taxes, unless it’s to lie about them during campaigns. (Each of the past four Dem Governors promised not to raise taxes, then broke that promise before even getting the Governor’s chair warm) Just a few weeks back, the Dems cheered the signing of "prevailing wage" legislation, which, true to form, once again subordinates the interests of taxpayers to that of a powerful Dem constituency group.

It asks quite a bit of (say) a teacher to expect him to subordinate his own self-interest to the greater good. He quite naturally votes for the candidate who promises him the best deal. That’s ALWAYS a Democrat.

Couple the increasing power within the Dem coalition of people who benefit from ever higher taxes, with general citizen apathy, add in the continuing, huge emigration from NJ of people tired of paying obscene taxes (one assumes disproportionately Republicans), and you have the recipe for an increasingly Blue state. The only people left behind are the kind of people whose puppy-like faith in the beneficence of government knows no bounds, the people who work for government (although even increasing numbers of them live in PA), and those living off the efforts of others.

Even Morris County.

Before 2010, mostly Red Georgia and mostly Red North Carolina will have passed NJ in terms of population. They didn’t achieve that population growth by cranking out kids. In significant measure, they attract precisely the sort of people that NJ repels: hard working, productive people who favor lower taxes and smaller government. Although something of a basket case by national standards, PA is thriving along the NJ border; only by comparison with disastrous NJ does PA look good.

So, what’s a good, freedom-loving Republican to do? Besides moving to locales which care more about liberty.

It’s simply impossible for the GOP to muster the kind of self-interested passion in our voters that the Dems muster in theirs, because we simply can’t offer our folks the same sort of bribes the Dems can. Try though some Republicans might, we simply cannot out-irresponsible the Dems, because however profligate and wasteful Republicans might be, the Dems are always happy to see our irresponsibility, and raise us. We offer the people freedom; we’re the party of leaving people alone. The Dems are the Party of "let me give you something ‘free’; I’ll make someone else pay your bills". We offer the people opportunity; the Dems purport to offer them guarantees (at someone else’s expense).

‘Course, ultimately, that edifice collapses under its own weight (as we already see looming with state pensions and benefits) because productive folk retain the option of leaving. But, as with any Ponzi scheme, those on the top of the pyramid make out fine, and fight like hell to preserve their own benefits. In short order, those left behind will face some extraordinarily difficult math. But it’s rather cold comfort, for freedom-loving folks, looking back at their former home state from the safety of North Carolina, to know that, shortly, they’ll be able to say, "I told you so".

Those with their hands in the cookie jar – to wit, those with a personal interest in governmental spending – are (almost) ALWAYS more motivated than those taxed to fill that jar up. But there comes a time when those disposed to empty the jar, for their own benefit, start to outnumber those doing the baking. When that happens, crisis ensues. And when THAT happens – and it will – the apathetic folks may wake up to the consequences of their lethargy. Can anyone say 1993?

And, when that happens, the GOP needs to enact pro-freedom reforms which prevent thae taxocrats from simply continuing where they left off, once general apathy returns, and self-interested spendocrats once again exert their disproportionate influence over matters political. Such was the failure of the Whitman (and Kean) administrations, and the GOP legislative majorities; when afforded the opportunity, they failed to put in place measures – such super-majority requirements for tax increases and evicting governmental employees from partisan politics – to fundamentally break the back of the spending interests on NJ politics.

The Dems just proved that when the majority of the people don’t care and stay home, their motivated voters prevail. There are now enough folks who care passionately about benefitting themselves at common expense to constitute a significant electoral force; people who approach the voting booth with their hands out, expecting the results of the election to provide them with a subsidy.

Even in Morris County.

Tax Cuts for All

Over the course of the past few years, politicians – mostly Democrats – have taken to their soapbox to trumpet the retention or relocation of some company in New Jersey. Each time, their chests puff out at the number of jobs created or saved. And, each and every time, the company involved received a massive tax subsidy.

Come now more Democrats, led by Senator Sarlo, urging an entirely new package of subsidies and tax credits for a selected industry, this time "digital media". For producing e-content here in NJ, companies would receive a tax credit.

In the old days, the Democrats had an expression for such programs: corporate welfare. Apparently, that old chestnut only applies to business subsidies ladled out by Republicans. When Democrats propose them, they’re benign efforts to stay in the forefront of the "new economy".

The Japanese tried this gimmick: choosing selected industries and heavily subsidizing them, with government selecting winners and losers. It produced the "Japan, Inc." buzz for a few years -- until the entire economy collapsed. Among the lessons hopefully learned from that fiasco: industrial policy never works, as government is essentially incompetent to pick winners and losers.

Alas, the lessons the Democrats learned, though, is that public relations trumps results every time. There have been a few high profile successes, with large companies, offered sufficient bribes, agreeing to remain here. Assuming the instant program actually works, and some companies locate here for the subsidy, all other things being equal, someone else will pay higher taxes so that these preferred companies pay less.

Put another way, one of Jim McGreevey’s first official acts was to double the corporate business tax, asserting that business must pay its "fair share" of NJ’s obscene budget. (When a Democrat employs that phrase, it translates to "more"; that is, whatever tax you're presently paying, your "fair share" is always "more") Naturally, businesses retrenched; but for the expansion in governmental hiring, there has been essentially zero net job growth over the course of the past seven years.

Obviously, much of the blame for this economic malaise rests at the feet of the spendocrats in Trenton, who've never met the tax they considered too high. Now, having reaped the inevitable results of imposing ever higher taxes on NJ businesses, they dole out subsidies to a lucky few. A clearer example of Ronald Reagan’s old chestnut would be hard to imagine: the Democrats, having taxed and regulated business until it stopped moving, now propose to subsidize it.

Here’s a thought: instead of imposing massive tax increases upon business generally, then carving out high profile exceptions for favored industries, why not just repeal the foolish tax increases entirely? Instead of government attempting to pick certain industries for subsidies, treat all businesses equally and let the market determine which should succeed, and where, and which should fail. A low tax, business friendly environment will do more to attract – and keep – jobs than targeted subsidies.

These proposals may "work" -- in the sense of providing an opportunity for the Governor to hold a press conference bragging about the few firms and the few dozen jobs they produce. But they will not reinvigorate NJ’s economy. That task requires that the state reverse its well-deserved reputation as a profoundly anti-business tax-hell, and could start by cutting taxes back to their pre-McGreevey levels.

These various subsidy programs demonstrate, conclusively, that tax cuts work. So, instead of showering goodies on favored industries, then crowing about how those tax cuts "work" – while the rest of the economy withers – cut taxes, across the board, for ALL businesses. While this produces few opportunities to stand behind a podium in front of a particular business to grandstand, the beneficiaries will be the tens of thousands of folks who kept or got jobs because NJ is no longer (justifiably) viewed as a lousy place to grow a business. After all, from the state's perspective, what difference does it make if a person opens an E-commerce business or a bank? There exists no logical reason to tax the latter to subsidize the former.