Accountability

During his inaugural address, Governor Corzine repeatedly emphasized one theme: "hold me accountable."

So, as the midterm elections approach, and his Party defends its record – his record – the question presents itself: has Corzine fulfilled the promises made during his campaign, or in his inaugural?

Corzine enjoys a huge advantage: following Jim McGreevey, virtually anyone looks good by comparison. The Democrats under McGreevey compiled one of the most shameful records of political and fiscal irresponsibility ever witnessed. The Democrats turned New Jersey into a national laughing stock, an economic basket case. If Corzine inherited a mess, his Democratic legislative counterparts created it.

Corzine promised change: an end to fiscal gimmicks, REAL property tax relief and reform (without new taxes), and a rebirth of ethical standards. He assured us that his private life would not impinge upon his public duties. He pledged to drive a hard bargain with state employee unions and to end the power of political bosses.

Sadly, after two years, most of these promises seem little more than empty rhetoric. The woman who knew him best – his wife – predicted, in a New York Times interview, that he "... would let New Jersey down". Although he’s only halfway through his term, that prediction seems increasingly prescient.

Give the man his due. McGreevey was mendacious: a deliberate, inveterate liar, utterly without principle, to whom honor and veracity meant nothing. Corzine, contrariwise, seems an earnest True Believer, a collectivist with a grudging understanding that the market and socialism play together poorly. A political Hamlet, he waivers between his socialist heart and his capitalist brain. He seems truly torn: he wants economic growth and understands the (Republican) policies necessary to bring it about, but those policies run completely contrary to his socialist impulses. Alas, poor Jon ...

To cases. The Corzine campaign centered on his promised REAL property tax relief, a pledge to increase rebates by 40%, without raising other taxes.

He failed miserably. Rebates – a foolish policy to begin with – were among the first casualties of his Administration. Then, he raised numerous taxes, including, most spectacularly, the sales tax. While condemning fiscal gimmicks and one-times, he endorsed the Mother of all One Time Gimmicks – an election-year rebate scheme which employs two years’ of revenue for one year’s rebates. He pledged sustainability, then adopted a plan which, by definition, cannot be sustained.

Corzine pledged pro-growth economic policies, but the massive tax hikes he delivered grow nothing but government. Indeed, government grew substantially under the Democrats’ watch, while private employment stagnated. While Hizzonor lamented the loss of high paying jobs, and their replacement with relatively low paying service sector jobs, his confiscatory tax policies continue the McGreevey policies which exacerbated the problem. Tens of thousand of productive citizens continue to flee NJ annually, replaced mostly by foreign immigrants, many of them illegal. About which he has also done nothing (although, in fairness, he never ran on a law and order platform).

Corzine asked the Legislature to "be bold". But timidly kowtowing to the urban bosses, he endorsed a budget which included hundreds of millions of "Christmas Tree" items. Indeed, the only time he demonstrated any real backbone came during a wholly artificial budget "crisis": an intramural spat between Democrats over what taxes to raise. Corzine demanded an increase in the sales tax, while Assembly Democrats held out for a stealth increase in the income tax. (They were BOTH wrong, but the Governor was less wrong.) Neither faction even considered spending cuts.

The Guv promised that he would drive a hard bargain with public employee unions; he proved to be a cream puff, leaving public employees with wages, pensions, and benefits unheard of in the private sector. Indeed, the only recent occasion on which the Governor demonstrated the slightest passion came at a Labor rally, during which he beat the air with his fist and promised to deliver a "fair contract". Unsurprisingly, the only group singled out for a welcome during his inaugural was "... my friends from labor". Clearly, the taxpayers had no representation at the bargaining table.

To his credit, unlike his immediately predecessors, Corzine actually included contributions to the pension plans in his budgets, a necessary step. But that hits the taxpayers with the full responsibility for resolving the pension/benefits crisis. He refused to roll back ill-advised unilateral increases in benefits (adopted, alas, by Republicans, and foolishly supported by your humble correspondent). Although he complained about borrowing, he "fixed" the TTF with even more borrowing, endorses $650 million in additional borrowing for this year, and is apparently incubating a "monetization"scheme – the Father of all gimmicks and one-times – which, in effect, borrows tens of billions against future toll-road revenues, using the proceeds to fund even more spending, virtually all of it in Democratic districts.

So, two years into his term, to what can Corzine point as a signal accomplishment? Taxes up substantially; size of government way up; spending mushrooming; borrowing exploding; no property tax reform; phony property tax relief; weak-kneed ethics measures; continued explosion in pension/health benefit costs; personal controversy; and serving as the chief of Party which could hold a leadership conference in Southern State.

The last six years represent a time of almost unparalleled financial/political disaster (and this from someone who thought that it would be difficult to surpass the Whitman/DiFrancesco legacy of foolishness). During the last two of those years, Corzine has done essentially nothing to right the ship of state. He demonstrated little leadership, certainly much less than the awesome power of the country’s most powerful Executive permits.

Corzine stands unabashedly on the side of those who benefit from, or work for, government, and strongly opposed to those who pay the bills, despite the fact that he seems dimly aware that such dynamic represents a recipe for catastrophe. The only solution to halt NJ’s inexorable economic slide lies in cutting taxes drastically, paring back government substantially, paying public employees on a scale commensurate with their private sector counterparts, stopping the tax/regulatory assault on business; equalizing school aid per child, etc. In short, all those things which only a Republican – and a conservative Republican at that – could endorse. Unless Corzine is willing to directly confront every spending interest group and reverse himself on just about everything in which he professes to believe, he cannot rescue NJ from it steady decay.

Hold me accountable", eh? Fine. A marginally more honest budget (as compared with McGreevey – which truly damns by faint praise) ... and nothing else. And even that at the price of billions in new taxes. Quite literally, no accomplishments whatsoever. Not a single major problem even so much as addressed, let alone solved. No action whatsoever, let alone "bold" action. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

Now, to the charge of partisanship in this undertaking, I plead unashamedly guilty. But I criticized Governors Whitman and DiFrancesco when they pulled McGreeveyite stunts. The GOP DESERVED to get "thumped" in last year’s Congressional elections for its abandonment of principle and its Democratic-lite spending predilections (despite the fact that the Dems have proven themselves exponentially worse). While I can honestly criticize a sitting president, and a sitting Governor – of my own Party – when they act foolishly, I will wager a lunch at Pal’s Cabin that not one of the Dems taking up the pen opposite me, assigned to defend THIS Administration, contemporaneously criticized McGreevey for the policies everyone now admits to be both dishonest and insane. Indeed, they almost certainly voted in favor of every one of his absurd budgets, for his obscene, unconstitutional borrowing, and for his confiscatory taxes. Given their uncritical support for McGreevey, based upon nothing more than partisanship, their uncritical, partisan support of Corzine counts for little.

The future looks bleak, with the massive shadow of "monetized" borrowing darkening the horizon. As bad the Corzine legacy looks now, he apparently entertains thoughts of making it markedly worse.

I & R

To Benjamin Franklin is attributed this particular pearl of wisdom:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Our Framers understood full well the difficulties associated with pure democracy, and drafted a system of government designed specifically to avoid its excesses. While representatives purport to govern under the authority of the people, the system – quite properly – checks the ability of the people to convert their desires into policy. Far too often, that which the people want – i.e. someone else’s property or income – is something to which they have not right and upon which they should not be permitted to vote. A republican system of government (coupled with a Constitution which takes certain subjects – i.e. "dinner" – off the table, so to speak) tends to prevent unreasonable, but popular, demands.

Unfortunately, powerful cabals of special interests discovered how to infiltrate a representative system of government and secure privilege for the few at the expense of the many. Whereas a democracy suffers from the possibility that the majority will oppress the minority, representative systems sometimes permit the minority to oppress the majority.

Put another way, as recent circumstances demonstrate, it’s easier to bribe one representative than 250,000 constituents. And not merely "bribes" of the sort which tend to trip the radar of the US attorney, but the (presently) perfectly legal sort, such as sweetheart deals to public employee unions or massive public subsidies to preferred constituencies, like Abbott districts.

In a rationale system, with an engaged populace, these outrages could not occur. But, sometimes, an arrogant Court imposes its will upon a reluctant populace, abetted by a complicit or impotent Legislature. Sometimes, a Legislature, elected through artfully (and, in the case of NJ, illegally) drawn legislative districts and backed by powerful, monied interests, imposes foolish – not to say corrupt – policy, to the detriment of the State, without fear of the electoral consequences. In both cases, the people possess no remedy to check those folks purporting to serve their interests.

Consider the case of racial quotas and preferences. The elites in virtually all states, and especially in academia and the media, support grouping people by color or ethnicity and apportioning out benefits accordingly. The public overwhelmingly opposes such racialism, believing that policy should be color blind. Frustrated by the refusal of the political elites to eliminate racialist policies, the people in several states took matters into their own hands, drafted initiatives, securing public support through signatures, and got the measures placed on the ballot. The political elites birthed whole litters of kittens and opponents spent huge sums of absurdly misleading advertisements, all to no avail. As a result, California, Michigan, Washington, and other states now boast racial policies infinitely more enlightened than those in NJ.

The difference? Those states trust their people, within broad limits, to make policy. NJ political officials, jealous of their own power, do not.

Can you imagine how long Abbott, Mount Laurel, or the various tax hikes imposed upon the people by arrogant Democrats would last in the face of popular referenda? Our Supreme Court would no longer be the last word on the Constitution; the people would be. And our Legislature might still fear the NJEA, but it would be compelled to respect the people, too.

Virtually every special interest opposes I & R precisely because it undercuts their ability to tilt policy in their own favor. Few issues unite both the business community – which, quite properly, fears demagogic but cute policy initiatives (see "sheep", above) – and public employee unions – which know full well that a 55 year-old retirement age and lifetime, taxpayer-funded health benefits would never survive a referendum – but I & R manages that feat.

The trick, then, lies in permitting the people to check the excesses of government, while preventing them from playing the part of the wolves in Franklin’s example. Banning racial discrimination is one thing; voting yourselves your neighbor’ money is quite another. Alas, both proposals would probably pass.

Jefferson once observed that the Revolution was not fought to create an elected tyranny; I & R cannot be permitted to metastasize into an engine permitting the majority to oppress the minority.

Since virtually all bad policy finds its genesis in the affirmative actions of the government, the proper solution may lie in simply according the people a veto on governmental action. Call this "negative I & R"; the people may, via petition, invalidate any action by the Legislature or by the Supreme Court.

If an appropriate number (say 5% of the registered voters) of people sign a petition, a simple question appears on the ballot: "Should public law X be invalidated?" A simple explanatory statement of what the law does would be included, and the people would decide. Say, for instance, a referendum on Governor Corzine’s massive sales tax hike. If it passes, the tax is invalidated and spending must be cut accordingly. Simple.

Or "should the Supreme Court decision in Abbott v. Burke be reversed"? If so, the power to set educational spending levels would revert to the Legislature (where it properly belongs.)

Certainly, NJ needs some form of I & R; a system that enables the people to negate governmental excesses while preventing the sort of majority tyranny Franklin, Jefferson, and the Framers feared.

Most of the wolves these days do quite nicely – at the expense of the sheep – through special interest influence on the Legislature and through importuning an imperious Court to impose via judicial diktat that which cannot be achieved even through the clearly corrupt political process. Affording the people the opportunity to supervise – and over-rule – those who purport to speak in their name affords both democrats and republicans – both sans caps – with the power they deserve and the protection they require.

Nonsense on the Delaware

The Dems in Washington make much merry over the asserted "politicization" of the US Attorney’s office. Query: where were all the outraged leftist voices, when a group of NJ prosecutors – apparently with too much time on their hands – gathered on the Delaware to lament that Pennsylvania treats its residents with more respect than does NJ. That is, it’s easier for a law abiding citizen to purchase a firearm in PA – or mainland China, for that matter – than it is here in Blue Jersey.

Now, not only does advocacy for gun control seem an exceptionally political issue – last I looked, the job description of the Prosecutors involves enforcing the laws we have, not advocating for new restrictions – but chastising another state for being freer than NJ is even dumber. (Can you imagine the howls of outrage if PA officials, let alone Prosecutors, stood on the banks of the Delaware and demanded that NJ adopt laws to prevent PA minors from circumventing parental notification laws on abortion?)

Most gun control measures are profoundly silly, operating only to prevent law abiding citizens from availing themselves of the same firepower as criminals – who, obviously, pay scant attention to legal restrictions on their instrumentalities – possess. Too, a government which does not fear its citizens has small reason to fear them being armed. Only tyrants quake before an armed free people.

Demonstrating the complete non-sequitor which tends to permeate the gun grabbers’ thoughts, one of the Prosecutors held up a weapon which looked like an AR-15, contending that such weapon, illegal in NJ, could be bought in PA. Pity some intrepid reporter didn’t ask a simple question: "just how many crimes were actually committed in NJ with AR-15's or similar ‘assault weapons’", because the answer is: almost none. Even given that the definition of such weaponry in NJ is both broad and senseless (according to one source, a gun with a flash suppressor or a bayonet lug might be an assault weapon, whereas the same gun, without that accouterment, would not), the number of such weapons used in crimes is minuscule. Nationally, about one out of every hundred murders involves such a weapon and, then, generally, its status as an "assault weapon" had nothing to do with the crime. (That is, the crimes were committed under such circumstances as the kind of firearm used made no difference)

If I read the State Police crime statistics right, not a single murder –not one – was perpetrated with a rifle in 2005 (the most recent year I could find on line). Unless one of the handguns used in the 65% of all murders for which they account somehow qualifies as an "assault weapon", there was not a single murder with such a weapon. Not one. Meanwhile, 61 people were stabbed to death; 20 bludgeoned; 40 pummeled with hands or feet, etc. The headlines this week report on several deaths by lightning here in NJ, demonstrating, yet again, that one is significantly more likely to be struck by lightning than to face the business end of an "assault weapon".

Indeed, one is much likelier to fall victim to one’s neighbors’ firebomb, noose, poison, or fists than to be shot with his "assault weapon". It’s simply irrational to fear such weapons in the hands of otherwise law abiding citizens. While bans on scary-looking guns make for good politics – all too often, the people do not think rationally – they constitute lousy policy. With such foolish laws, we sacrifice a measure of our freedom, and receive precisely zip in return.

But far be it from the Politically-Correct Prosecutors to let the facts get in the way of a good photo op.

Indeed, this brings to mind a recent Canadian official who, confronting the death – by stabbing – of a school child, offered that the solution rested in a "war on handguns". (I can only assume that the perp stabbed the victim to death with the barrel of the gun) THIS passes for intelligent commentary?

There exists precisely no evidence that PA "assault weapons" are somehow sneaking across the border. If, as the Prosecutors suggest, anyone can easily secure an "assault weapon" in PA, the fact that not a single criminal chose to pack that kind of heat should speak volumes.

Too, as a PA official noted, virtually all of the weapons – handguns, mostly – sold in PA which turn up in NJ, were acquired illegally in the first instance, often stolen. Just how, pray tell, would more anti-freedom restrictions in PA solve the problem of criminals breaking the laws which already exist?

But, as with most good liberals, the Prosecutors don’t let logic interfere with policy, and forget that the problem isn’t that criminals are armed, it’s that they’re criminals. The gun is not the problem; it’s the bad guy behind it.

Our Prosecutors, I thought, had their hands full trying to convict those who break the law in NJ. Apparently, they believe that their job description includes advising – or hectoring – the PA Legislature. If they wish to run for office in PA, they should resign their positions and move (as have so many other productive, freedom loving citizens, fleeing NJ’s increasingly oppressive climate). Until that time, if they wish to agitate for policy change (here in NJ, where they might actually receive a hearing), they would be well advised to advocate for long periods of incarceration for the violent thugs who abuse our freedom and an effective, expeditious death penalty for murderers.

Otherwise, they should keep their political opinions – and ill-informed, extra-territorial ones at that – to themselves.

The Real Corruption Problem

So, two more (Democratic) Legislators fall by the wayside, unable to resist the siren call of easy money.

The Dems are doing the best they can to divorce this latest scandal from politics, contending that criminality knows no party affiliation. While I fully concur, I don't recall them being quite so charitable when DC Republicans found themselves immersed in scandal brought about by the aberrant actions of a few (Republican) miscreants. They gleefully pilloried the GOP for the misdeeds of Mark Foley, or the (asserted) misdeeds of Tom Delay, tarring with a very broad brush. But, now that their own criminal chickens have come home to roost, they object to drawing political conclusions therefrom.

The fact that (usually) urban Dems are crooked – either outright or suspect – has never been a secret. But, as Charles Peters sagaciously observed, the scandal lies not in the fact that some office holders are crooks, but in the fact that much of what they do is perfectly legal.

Wayne Bryant's self-enrichment program was never a secret. The scuttlebutt holds that one prominent Legislator now facing the wrath of the US Attorney once had five (5) members of his family on his legislative staff. You could hold a Camden City Council meeting at Southern State.

But even when the Dems do it (seemingly) legally, ala Menendez, it's still all about money: for themselves and – crucially – for their constituents, cronies, and supporters. Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect. The Dems impose large taxes on people inclined to support Republicans and spend it on themselves and their friends. Occasionally, one of them gets greedy and steps over the legal line, taking too obvious a piece for himself. It always shocks me: with so many avenues to legally enrich yourself at public expense – if so inclined – why stoop to illegality? How greedy can you be?

Consider the multiple public jobs these folks tend to hold. While it pained me, personally, to see Al Steele (apparently) fall victim to temptation – especially for such a modest amount – the real scandal lay in holding multiple public jobs. Just what does an "undersheriff" do, anyway? And how is it that such an officer can find the time in his presumably full-time schedule to serve as both a minister and an Assemblyman? Ditto Joe Cryan: if he’s working as a full-time "undersheriff", where does he find the time to serve in the Assembly and as Chairman of the State Democratic Party?

The real scandal isn't that James, Bryant, and others took a small piece of the boodle for themselves; it's that the boodle exists at all. If you lived in Newark, why would you care about Sharpe’s (asserted) petty theft? YOU are doing very well -- thank you very much -- at the expense of Morris County taxpayers, and if James chooses to take a small gratuity, so what? It's not YOUR money, after all, that he's (allegedly) stealing. Chris Christie’s admonition to the voters – that they must police their own officeholders – rings hollow when the voters know about the corruption, but take no action, because its not THEIR money that the official steals. In fact, urban voters reward piracy, because they know that they benefit from the pillage.

The folks who replace these disgraced officials will be just as bad politically, even if (theoretically) more honest. They will continue to spend gazillions of other people’s money on their constituents, cronies, and supporters, and thumb their noses at those who object. Urban residents love it. The public employee unions love it. The true-believer, bluejersey-type folks love it. And every single one of them votes. 'Course, they're voting on how much of someone else’s income and property they will appropriate for themselves.

And THAT constitutes the real corruption: the assertion that the distribution of one’s income and property is a proper subject for a majority vote.

The problem with the GOP message – that what you earn or own belongs to you – is that it runs squarely up against the greedy hand of those who personally profit at taxpayer expense, an ever increasing number of voters. Democrats’ redistributionist policies (the politics of envy and covetousness) please the folks feeding on the public pap; those who receive other people’s money and those hired to administer the redistribution programs.

Simply put, it’s not the corruption of the occasional petty thief which causes our problems, but that of the electorate at large. What real difference exists between an elected official enriching himself at public expense, and the electorate, which votes to employ the tax system for the same purpose? In each case, people take things which they have not earned and which do not belong to them. The former case costs us a measly few hundred K; maybe a few mil; the latter costs us trillions.

Nope. The fault in our system lies not with an occasional, corrupt legislator – there will be criminals in every profession – but with a corrupt electorate. All too many folks – here in NJ primarily urban residents and public employee unions, but, nationally, including folks like farmers – see politics as a way to enrich themselves at the expense of other people. We’re outraged when public officials personally profit by virtue of their position of power, but blithely accept the infinitely greater threat of the electorate doing precisely the same thing.

Legislators – and the electorate – labor under a common obligation: thou shalt not employ thine power for personal gain. The solution to the first problem is obvious: jail. The solution to the second is just as patent: preclude ANY programs which enable a legislator to buy votes at common expense. No pork projects. No transfer payments. No subsidies. No sweetheart deals for public employees. (This last best achieved by precluding participation, personal or financial, by public employees in partisan politics: they suffer from an irreconcilable conflict of interest. The temptation to place their own interests ahead of those of the people they purport to serve is simply too obvious to ignore.) Indeed, the best possible solution would be to prevent anyone who receives a nickel from the taxpayers from voting – including elected officials. Unable to buy votes with other people’s money, legislators might concentrate on actually crafting good policy.

A small, efficient government, which does a few, unsexy, necessary things, and does them inexpensively, constitutes the best hope for a society free of corruption, one which respects the rights and freedom of all, and which does not create incentives, on the part of the electorate or the elected, to vote themselves other people’s money.