tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9746147877800536172023-06-20T09:25:27.109-04:00New Jersey Blues: New Jersey Government Under Chris Christie.New Jersey Government has become a front line for the war between the tea party radical right and the liberal left. We are a liberal Democratic state under a far right administration. And that bears comment.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-47958178360482966382012-02-14T19:30:00.003-05:002012-02-14T19:44:39.685-05:00Is Gay Marriage Coming To New Jersey?Probably not. But today's WSJ coverage of the issue caught my eye for two reasons.<br /><br />Today, New Jersey's Senate approved, by 24-16, a bill legalizing gay marriage. The bill now moves to the State Assembly, where it faces an uphill slog. And ultimately a veto from Governor Christie.<br /><br />Interestingly, two Republican Senators defied the Governor and voted for gay marriage -- Jennifer Beck and Diane Allen. Governor Christie is well-known for punishing those Republicans who vote against his wishes. It is one of the ways the Governor has maintained such tight control over the State's Republican legislators. It will be interesting to see if the Governor takes any shots at Beck and Allen.<br /><br />The second thing that caught my eye is probably the single most tasteless quote from an opponent of gay marriage that I have ever read. "When you give special rights to a small sexual minority, you rape the [First Amendment rights] of the majority," said Gregory Quinlan of the New Jersey Family Policy Council. Really -- rape?<br /><br />I've become to immune to statements like that from Republican Senator Gerald Cardinale, who stated that "[i]ncest produces negative impacts on our society. But if we open marriage to some same-sex couples in the name of anti-discrimination, why not to all couples?" It's like Rick Santorum (I'm secretly rooting for you, Rick) saying why stop at letting two men marry, why not three, or more? Or like Rick Santorum comparing gay marriage to bestiality.<br /><br />But rape is beyond the pale. To say that allowing gay marriage is committing rape on the rights of straight people shows a lack of respect both for gay people and to women -- it's a double smack against lesbians, I guess.<br /><br />Can we all agree to keep our homophobia within socially acceptable parameters? If I agree to allow poligamy, incest and bestiality comparisons, can we agree to draw the line at rape?<br /><br />Thanks.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-35493223588147603392012-01-31T16:22:00.005-05:002012-01-31T16:50:30.882-05:00The Governor Misses The Gay MarkSince my favorite reality show, the Republican Debates, appears to be going on hiatus for a few weeks, I thought I would get back to blogging about Chris Christie.<br /><br />As a gay citizen of New Jersey, I disagree with all of those who say the Governor has been masterful in his recent gay rights activities. He has appointed an openly gay Supreme Court Justice and he has called for a state wide referendum on gay marriage.<br /><br />First, the Justice. Bruce A. Harris is black and gay, a double minority. And while I'm all for diversity on the court, I find this appointment disappointing. Harris has absolutely no judicial experience -- he is the former mayor of a conservative town, Chatham, and a lawyer from a conservative law firm, Greenberg Traurig. I have to believe that there are more experienced gay jurists in the State more worthy of being elevated to the Supreme Court than is Harris.<br /><br />In other words, the fact that Harris is gay does not automatically mean that his appointment to the Supreme Court is a good thing for gay people. While a would welcome an experienced jurist who was not disqualified for being gay, I do not welcome an inexperienced jurist whose primary qualifications appear to be being gay and being black.<br /><br />As for the call for a statewide referendum on gay marriage, this is clearly turning a civil right into a political football. First of all, it takes the issue out of the state legislature. Most conservatives have been calling for gay marriage to be decided by state legislatures and not by the courts. So why would Christie break from the conservative mainstream?<br /><br />Because this year Senator Bob Menendez is running for re-election to the Senate and will probably win. There is no Republican candidate who can truly match Menendez' popularity. Republican State Senator Joe Kyrillos has said he will challenge Menendez, but no one thinks Kyrillos has a shot. Kyrillos has no name recognition outside of Trenton and is unlikely to motivate Republicans to come out to the polls.<br /><br />But if a referendum on gay marriage is on the ballot, conservative voters will come out in droves. Conservative voters who will most likely vote Republican.<br /><br />So Christie is not trying to try to find the most appropriate means by which to determine the question of gay marriage in New Jersey, he is using the issue of gay marriage to bring out the Kyrillos vote in the Senatorial campaign. Vintage Christie, yes; but appropriate treatment of civil rights for gay couples, no.<br /><br />I'm happy to see that Christie's call for a Statewide referendum has met with some resistance. The Wall Street Journal reports that Christie said:<br /><br />"People would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets of the South."<br /><br />Georgia Representative George Lewis, who was beaten in the streets of the South during the civil rights movement, has traveled to Trenton to call the Governor out on the idiocy of his statement. Says Lewis:<br /><br />"If put to a referendum, [civil rights laws] would never ever won. The action of Congress, executive orders of the President and the courts brought down those signs that said white man, colored man, white woman, colored woman. We had to march . . .we had to protest."<br /><br />And even Christie pal Cory Booker chimed in by saying:<br /><br />"I shudder to think what would have happened if civil rights issues for African-Americans were relegated to referendums in the 50 states."<br /><br />So, to my thinking, the Governor has a tin ear on gay rights issues, and his ham-fisted efforts to appear open-minded have offended not only the gay community but the African-American community as well. Such ignorance of the history of the civil rights movement will surely dog the Governor as he attempts to seek national office.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-79334634024945935282011-07-26T21:01:00.003-04:002011-07-26T21:10:30.083-04:00The Unitary Executive Of New Jersey Strikes AgainSo Chris Christie is offering to restore the $139 million in discretionary aid to urban areas he cut from the Democratic budget. With one caveat -- the Governor gets to oversee how the money is spent.<br /><br />The Governor's stated rationale is that the discretionary aid has been used by Democratic party bosses as a piggy bank. But when you look at the Governor's pattern of behavior, another reason emerges.<br /><br />This Governor has publicly stated that the State Constitution gives him a lot of power, and he intends to use all of it. And the way Chris Christie uses his power is as any fundraiser would (Christie is a fundraiser at heart).<br /><br />Any power the Governor gets will be used to punish those who cross him and reward those who support him. How vindictive is the Governor? He used a line item veto to cut $100,000 from a Rutgers intern program because the program was run, in part, by the Rutgers professor who chose the Democratic redistricting map over the Republican plan.<br /><br />So when the Governor says he wants oversight on how urban areas spend their discretionary aid, he is really saying that he is looking for power to punish those in urban areas who cross him and reward those in urban areas who support him.<br /><br />At least the Governor is consistent.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-51273083416838257962011-07-11T07:22:00.006-04:002011-07-11T16:08:12.336-04:00A Budget Of RetributionI recently heard Sen. Buono describe the Governor's line item veto of some $900 million from the state budget as a retribution by budget.<br /><br />I thought it an interesting perspective. Most of the so-called news coverage I have heard about the Governor's line item veto focused on women, children and AIDS patients. Certainly, these are the areas where Democrats will seek to override the Governor's veto. While I could understand (while disagreeing with) the Governor's decision that there was not enough money in the budget for these safety net social services, I would not say the Governor was trying to get back at women, children and AIDS patients. <br /><br />What did occur to me was the huge amount of discretionary funding for urban areas that the Governor cut. Here, I could see retribution. The State Supreme Court ordered the Governor to send $500 million to urban areas to adequately fund schools. The Governor then responded by reducing State aid to urban areas by $140 million. This particular cut was labeled "vindictive" by Sheila Oliver and by Bonnie Watson-Coleman.<br /><br />On the one hand, the Governor is catering to his base, wealthy suburbs which feel that too many of their tax dollars are sent to urban areas. On the other hand, the Governor was simply continuing to act as the unitary executive of New Jersey. The Supreme Court says to send more money? He just goes around the Supreme Court.<br /><br />I think that the Sen. Buono, when using the word "retribution," has hit on a potentially powerful criticism of the Governor. Using the power of one's office to seek retribution against political enemies and taxpayers is not one of the qualities most people look for in a President. At least Nixon had the good sense to use intermediaries, for all the good it did him.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-42299519859466855952011-07-02T16:47:00.004-04:002011-07-02T17:10:52.606-04:00A Quick Note On AIDS PatientsNew Jersey has about 35,000 people living with AIDS. In 2010, about 7,645 people received AIDS medications, as well as medications for AIDS related health issues, under the State ADAP, or AIDS Drug Assistance Program. About half of those people are African-American and about a quarter are Latinos. The 2010 budget cut about 950 of those people from the ADAP plan by lowering the income eligibility for the program from 5 times the Federal poverty rate to 3 times the Federal poverty rate.<br /><br />Then the Governor announced that, by negotiating additional drug rebates with pharmaceutical companies, those 950 people would continue to get their AIDS drugs free from the State. Of course, they would no longer receive free drugs for AIDS related medical conditions.<br /><br />In the 2011 budget, the Democratic legislature tried to restore those 950 people to the ADAP program, thus restoring their right to receive free drugs for AIDS related medical conditions in addition to their AIDS meds. Since the 950 were already getting their AIDS meds free, this was a modest budget proposal. In 2009, the State spent $8.7 million in ADAP funds for people making 4 and 5 times the poverty level; the additional rebates from pharmaceutical companies must have reduced this figure dramatically.<br /><br />However, despite the nominal cost of the program, the change did not escape the Governor's line item veto. So, for another year, the largely black and latino AIDS population making 4-5 times the poverty level -- i.e., between $32,500 and $55,150 -- will not be getting free medication for AIDS related illnesses.<br /><br />Insert millionaires' tax joke here.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-50705785572484012262011-07-02T14:06:00.004-04:002011-07-02T14:33:06.070-04:00The Helicopter Flap and the Missed PointBy now we've all heard about CopterGate; Chris Christie taking a State helicopter from Trenton to his son's baseball game, and then taking the copter back to Trenton to meet with a delegation from Iowa trying to get the Governor to jump into the Presidential Race. Since neither trip was for State purposes, critics cried foul.<br /><br />Practically speaking, this should have been a non-event. The helicopters have to fly a certain amount of hours for training, so they would have been in the air anyway. And, reportedly, Christie uses the helicopter much less frequently than did his immediate Democratic predecessors.<br /><br />But this is not a practical issue. This is an exercise in branding.<br /><br />There are three legs to the Republican Party, the fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives and the small government advocates. Christie is a favorite of all three legs -- not only has he cut the budget and laid off government workers, he has also defunded all women's health centers because three provided abortions and has come out against gay marriage (no pun intended). <br /><br />Truth be told, there are fiscal conservatives and small government advocates outside of the Republican party. Like me, for instance. The biggest reason I'm not a member of the Republican party is because I cannot join forces with the social conservative wing of the party.<br /><br />So any chance Christie opponents can get to either (i) play up Christie's social conservative values, making him unattractive to independents like me, or (ii) attack Christie's bona fide credentials as a fiscal conservative or a small government advocate, making him less attractive to all of his fans, they are going to jump. This is in addition to efforts such as Loretta Weinberg's repeatedly making the Governor veto bills for women's health centers, and the Democrats repeatedly making the Governor veto a millionaire's tax, because they want to make the Governor unattractive to women and blue collar workers, i.e., Democrats.<br /><br />The attention to the Governor's helicopter trip was an attempt to reach into the Governor's own base and show him to be a big government guy, taking advantage of his perks as Governor while causing middle class pain.<br /><br />And this does strike at a weak spot of the Governor. As a U.S. Attorney, Christie was repeatedly cited for staying at hotels more luxurious and expensive than other Attorneys General, i.e., repeatedly taking expensive perks for himself and his staff on the public dime.<br /><br />But Christie opponents continue to miss the biggest chink in the Governor's Republican bona fides, which is his continued expansion of the State's Executive Branch. Christie has repeatedly said he will use his power as Governor to the full extent of his Consitutional powers. He has sacked a State Supreme Court Justice for purely political reasons, an unprecedented step; he has taken over various independent watchdog agencies; he has taken over Atlantic City; he sought to limit the amounts municipalities can choose to pay their school superintendents, expanding State power; and he fired the Newark School Superintendent for no reason other than he wanted to to make room for Michelle Rhee, who ultimately turned down the job. These are not the actions of a small government advocate, yet no one has successfully connected the dots to call the Governor on his expansion of State power.<br /><br />So tilt at helicopters if you will, but at least notice the big stuff.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-3865570505330888392011-07-02T13:26:00.004-04:002011-07-02T14:00:09.059-04:00State Commission of Investigation in Chris Christie's PocketWhat with the death of public media in New Jersey and all, I thought it was time to fire up the blog again.<br /><br />Prior to Chris Christie's taking office, New Jersey had three independent watchdog agencies -- the Inspector General, the Medicaid Inspector General and the State Commission of Investigation. Last year, as a budget cutting move, the Inspector General and the Medicaid Inspector General were merged with the State Comptroller, bringing both into the Executive Branch and under the control of Chris Christie.<br /><br />Christie also wanted to merge the State Commission of Investigation into the Comptroller's Office. However, the SCI is under the jurisdiction of the Legislature; and there was great outcry from both Democrats and Republicans, currently in office and retired, against merging the agency. So the Governer relented.<br /><br />In late March of this year, however, Governor Christie announced that U.S. Attorney Patrick Degnan had been named Executive Director of SCI for the next three years. Degnan, like anyone who has ever worked for Christie, knows that if Degnan ever crosses Christie, not only will Christie never again promote him but Degnan will be on Chris Christie's hit list. Think Joan Verplank at the Chamber of Commerce.<br /><br />How exactly did Chris Christie get his man in charge at the State Commission of Investigation? Members of SCI are appointed by the Governor, the President of the New Jersey Senate and the Speaker of the New Jersey Assembly. Which means Steve Sweeney and Sheila Oliver agreed placed the SCI under the control of a former U.S. Attorney approved by Chris Christie.<br /><br />One wonders the full parameters of THAT deal.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-37658423380287797972011-04-29T22:05:00.002-04:002011-04-29T22:14:27.986-04:00Haley Barbour Clears The Way For A Christie Run In 2012Haley Barbour has announced that he will not seek the Presidency in 2012.<br /><br />As head of the Republican Governors Association, Barbour was a staunch supporter of Chris Christie's gubernatorial run. And since Christie is essentially a fundraiser at heart, he knows not to bite the hand that feeds him. So since the RGA pumped millions of dollars into Christie's campaign, Christie raised millions for Republican gubernatorial candidates in 2010.<br /><br />As long as Haley Barbour was a potential Presidential candidate, Christie could not run. Christie simply will not run against anyone who supported him to the extent Barbour did -- it would violate the Christie brand of rewarding his benefactors and punishing his foes.<br /><br />But it's an entirely new situation now, opening the possibility that Barbour himself, through the RGA, would launch a draft Christie campaign. Why would Barbour do that? His term as Governor of Mississippi is up in 2012, and he is term barred from running again. Which means Barbour will be looking for a job in 2012. Helping Christie take the White House would mean a plum position in Washington for Barbour.<br /><br />Time will tell.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-7275333036802757782011-04-14T18:53:00.003-04:002011-04-14T18:58:10.149-04:00Proof The Christie Plan Is WorkingYesterday, NJN News had footage of students across New Jersey protesting against tuition hikes.<br /><br />I remember stories of students protesting against the war in Viet Nam. I can remember protesting against Reagan-era policies on the environment and on Central America. Today's students protest over tuition.<br /><br />And that's the plan. Undermine the middle class so they only have the time and energy to worry about their own survival, and they won't have time to worry about anything else.<br /><br />I've heard the common wisdom that if you're not a liberal in your 20's you have no heart and if you're not a conservative in your 40's you have no mind. But if you never get to be a liberal in your 20's, where do you end up in your 40's?Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-49736631335818391372011-02-14T16:42:00.004-05:002011-02-14T17:09:49.539-05:00The War On Jobs Comes Home To NJEconomists in this country are faced with a quandary: how can the economy be recovering (which it is) without generating new jobs (which it is not, in any meaningful way)?<br /><br />What few acknowledge is that this point has been 30 years in the making. The war on jobs started under Ronald Reagan. The call to arms -- "We must increase productivity!" Under the mantra of realizing the full value of assets, companies were bought, broken down into their constituent parts and sold. The ability to provide the same level of goods and services with fewer people was lauded.<br /><br />And so launched the now familiar story of the 50 year old middle manager who was downsized and never recovered his or her financial security. The first of those people are now collecting social security and consuming less. When consumers consume less, the economy suffers.<br /><br />Now, it wasn't so bad when the middle class was consuming beyond its means by tapping home equity and easy credit. But it's a new day now. So not only are the displaced middle managers of the 1980s consuming less now, but all consumers (displaced and otherwise) are consuming less now.<br /><br />Is it possible, then, that a side effect of the 30 year march towards greater productivity (doing more with fewer people and fewer resources) has a side effect -- lower consumer consumption?<br /><br />If so, then, there may be an argument to made for the value of employment to the economy on a par with productivity. Maybe cutting all of those jobs over the past 30 years resulted in short term gain at the expense of the long-term health of the economy.<br /><br />It is against this backdrop that a privatization debate is playing out in New Jersey. Apparently, Governor Christie's privatization commission believes the State can save $210 million, about 1% of its budget, by privatizing state workers (I note that said report is deeply flawed, as discussed earlier on this blog). Allowing a toll taker who earns $65,000 a year to be replaced by a part-time employee who makes minimum wage and gets no benefits. A new coalition, the Coalition on Privatization, says that outsourcing functions currently performed by government will endanger the environment and public health, result in higher fees and a decline in the level of service provided to the public. <br /><br />But the coalition missed the point. The Governor is seeking to create short-term gain for his supporters at the expense of the long term ability of the public to consume goods and services here in New Jersey. But wait, the Governor will explain, the short-term gain will allow small business to create more jobs, more efficient and productive jobs which are better for the economy.<br /><br />To which I reply, it's been 30 years since the war on employment began, Governor, where are the jobs? Where are the jobs the Bush tax cuts were supposed to generate? Show me the jobs, Mr. Governor, and you can replace my toll taker with Robbie the Robot. But until then, stop adding to unemployment and stop undermining consumption in this state.<br /><br />Until Republicans begin to understand that short-term gain that adds to unemployment is hurting the economy by squeezing out middle class consumption, our economy will continue to limp along. All of us -- rich, poor and the three people left in between -- are in the same sinking economic boat now.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-57640500627251033642011-01-23T10:01:00.004-05:002011-01-23T10:31:41.709-05:00WSJ Hearts Utah Pension ReformThe Wall Street Journal editorial page recently waxed rhapsodic about Utah, which has replaced a defined benefit pension plan for new state and municipal workers with a 401(k)-style plan.<br /><br />In Utah, new state and municipal employees can choose to: receive an amount equal to 10%-12% from the state as a contribution to a private retirement account, and contribute an additional 8%; or receive up to 10% contribution to a private defined benefit plan with less generous benefits than the existing plan, with the employee bearing the responsibility for contributing anything above that. Under both plans, the employee decides how to invest the funds (and bears the entire risk if those decisions are poor ones).<br /><br />The result is that Utah taxpayers no longer bear the responsibility of paying defined benefits to retirees for life, regardless of how the state pension fund fares in the marketplace. The reform was triggered when the 2008 market crash caused Utah's pension fund to lose 22% of its value.<br /><br />According to the WSJ, "The reform has benefits for taxpayers and public employees. Workers own their own retirement account and can carry it to another job. They also benefit because politicians can no longer steal from the pension plan to pay for other government spending. As for taxpayers, the reform will eventually slash state pension liabilities in half and they no longer bear the risk of having to pay higher taxes if the stock market declines."<br /><br />Shockingly, to the WSJ, union leaders resisted. Apparently, union leaders feared the dissolution of a public safety net for retirees. And the slashing of other social programs which had been financed by leveraging the state pension fund.<br /><br />The WSJ editorial was widely quoted across the internet, giving legitimacy to the pension reform echo chamber. It won't be long before we hear Governor Christie start beating the same drum.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-52608740447649572092011-01-19T20:13:00.005-05:002011-01-19T20:37:03.018-05:00Quote Of Note: The Ultimate Public Pension ReformIt seems Chris Christie sat down with the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal recently, which means that the Governor has been getting even more press from the WSJ than usual. For example, the Governor's plan to eliminate teacher tenure was prominently featured in an article by Lisa Fleischer.<br /><br />And last Friday, assistant editorial page editor James Freeman published a love note to the Governor's public pension reform plans. The editorial included the following quote:<br /><br />"The ultimate reform is to move to a 401(k)-style [public pension] plan that provides transparency to taxpayers while allowing government employees -- not politicians or union bosses -- to control their retirement savings with individual accounts. How to enact such reform in New Jersey? 'You get a Republican legislature, that's how you do it,' says Christie. 'I'm dealing in a context where the Democratic Party in my state has been ruled by the public-sector unions.'"<br /><br />This line of reasoning brings back fond memories of George W. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security by diverting Social Security taxes into private accounts. At the time, critics viewed the plan as a giveaway to Wall Street, which would end up managing Social Security funds on a for-profit basis. Of course, this was before the Great Recession made it clear that there is real risk in relying on the marketplace for retirement funds.<br /><br />So, in addition to his expansion of executive power by absorbing the Medicaid Inspector General and Inspector General into the executive branch of the State government, and his plan to absorb county prosecutors into the Attorney General's office, the Governor has now found another way to show his affinity for the Bush-Cheney-Rove faction of the Republican party -- handing government pensions to Wall Street.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-10093677879470298062011-01-15T14:21:00.004-05:002011-01-17T21:24:24.400-05:00Chris Christie's Culture Of Half-TruthI finally made my way through the Governor's State of the State address, and by and large I find what it fails to say to be more important than what it actually does say.<br /><br />Although the Governor said he believes in a culture of truth, he began his speech with a number of half truths. He claims to have balanced the State budget; however, the budget isn't truly balanced. The Governor relied on FMAP money which only partially came in, failed to fully fund the transportation trust fund and refused to make Constitutionally mandated payments to the public employee pension plan. He claimed that taxes are lower, but did not clarify that they are only lower for the wealthy and that property taxes are certainly on their way up this year. And he claimed that New Jersey's taxes are causing the wealthy to flee the State, a claim which has already been debunked.<br /><br />On the stay the course front, the Governor reiterated his three top priorities: fiscal discipline and lower taxes; reforming the public pension system by raising the retirement age, freezing COLAs in times of little or no inflation and requiring public employees to contribute to their own pensions; and reforming our education system by eliminating tenure, closing failing schools, instituting merit pay and creating more charter schools.<br /><br />On the revisiting Reagan front, the Governor referenced the shining city on a hill, which Christian conservatives recognize as a reference to heaven. He also seemed to embrace trickle down economics by suggesting he would close popular programs to fund infrastructure investments and tax breaks.<br /><br />But on what may well be Christie's most lasting legacy, nary a word. First, the Governor said nothing about his battle against the rule of law. Many of his cost-cutting moves are being challenged in court, including his education cuts and his attempt to cap superintendent pay. There is a good chance both plans may be found to be unconstitutional. The Governor actually said he would allow the State to make its Constitutionally mandated pension contributions if, and only if, he gets the pension plan reforms he seeks. So, despite the fact that Governor has sworn to uphold the State Constitution, he continues to ignore select Constitutional duties.<br /><br />Second, the Governor said not a word about his expansion of the executive branch of New Jersey's government. He has merged the Inspector General and the Medicaid Inspector General into the executive branch, and seeks to do the same with the State Commission of Investigation. He is also exploring absorbing the county prosecutors into the Attorney General's office.<br /><br />So, simply put, the Governor is mum about bringing all of the State's investigative and prosecutorial power under the control of an executive branch which feels free to ignore the rule of law, seriously undermining our State's checks and balances.<br /><br />I know that telling people that he is expanding government does not play as well with his right wing besties as beating up on teachers and cops, but really, I do think it deserves some mention when discussing the State of the State.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-40007880301241590752011-01-06T22:02:00.004-05:002011-01-06T22:17:55.831-05:00Our Children As Profit CentersRemember, in New Jersey, children are not just our future, they are our future profit centers.<br /><br />This is the philosophy at the center of Chris Christie's education policy. According to the Governor, the best hope for public education is to replace it with for-profit education facilities such as charter schools; undermine the teachers' union so as to be able to force out senior, expensive teachers; and combine schools to promote efficiency at the expense of local control of curricula. In other words, treat education like a business.<br /><br />So advertising on school buses is a no-brainer. Which is why the Governor just signed into law a bill that allows just that.<br /><br />Oddly, only the 40% of municipalities that own their own school buses can advertise; the municipalities which lease their buses cannot sell advertising space. Ads for tobacco and alcohol are prohibited, as are any ads the Commissioner of Education deems inappropriate. In other words, this law is just a lawsuit waiting to happen. Some districts can sell ads, others can't; some businesses can advertise, others can't. It's an equal access/ First Amendment nightmare.<br /><br />But it's also a sign of things to come. Get ready for corporate logos on football fields and basketball courts; brand logos on school uniforms; and any and all other means available to turn access to our school children into a thriving industry.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-50056654995029671922010-12-29T10:57:00.005-05:002010-12-29T11:40:27.564-05:00Justice Rivera-Soto and the Rule of LawAs previously discussed on this blog, Governor Christie declined to re-nominate Supreme Court Justice John Wallace to a tenured position on the Supreme Court, a seat the 68 year old jurist would have held for 22 months. Christie did so because Wallace would not commit to overturning the State's school-funding rules as established in the Supreme Court case of Abbott v. Burke. Although many called this a shocking politicization of the judiciary by the Governor, no one argues that the Governor is not within his rights under the State Constitution, which provides that the Governor nominates all judges (with the advice and consent of the Senate) and that Supreme Court Justices serve for an initial 7 year term.<br /><br />Senate Democrats, led by Senate President Steve Sweeney, have refused to give Governor Christie's nominee to replace Justice Wallace, Anne Patterson, a hearing. Sweeney has said he will hold up the nomination until the expiration of the 22 month period Justice Wallace could have served. To avoid allowing the Governor the option of naming a recess appointment, Sweeney is keeping the Senate in continuous session. While many have argued that Sweeney is unduly politicizing the judicial nomination process, no one has successfully argued that Sweeney is violating the Constitution.<br /><br />After the Supreme Court deadlocked 3 to 3 on a case about the legalization of gay marriage, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner appointed Chief Appellate Judge Edwin Stern to the Supreme Court. In so doing, Rabner relied on the following Constitutional power:<br /><br />"The Supreme Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and six Associate Justices. Five members of the court shall constitute a quorum. When necessary, the Chief Justice shall assign the Judge or Judges of the Superior Court, senior in service, as provided by rules of the Supreme Court, to serve temporarily in the Supreme Court."<br /><br />Recently, Supreme Court Associate Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto announced that he will abstain from any decision in which Stern participates. Rivera-Soto argues that Rabner only has the right to appoint a replacement when the Supreme Court lacks a quorum, i.e., has fewer than 5 Justices. In other words, Rivera-Soto reads the Constitution as meaning that the Supreme Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and not less than four nor more than six Associate Justices, and the Chief Justice shall assign a replacement judge when necessary to make a quorum.<br /><br />In truth, Rivera-Soto has raised a valid point of Constitutional construction. And if he had legal standing to place that question before the court, as someone who has been harmed by a misinterpretation of the Constitution, he would have legal redress available. He could bring a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment as to the meaning of the Constitutional language in question.<br /><br />As a seasoned jurist, Rivera-Soto knows he has no legal grounds to challenge the Chief Justice's decision; hence, his resort to self-help. However, there is no Constitutional support for an Associate Justice's refusal to hear cases on any grounds, let alone the grounds that the Chief Justice is misinterpreting the law. On the latter issue, the Constitution is clear: "The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall be the administrative head of all the courts in the State."<br /><br />So, what is to be done about Justice Rivera-Soto? He is in his initial 7 year term. Had he been given tenure he would hold his post in good behavior and thus be subject to impeachment; however, it is not clear that an Associate Justice in his initial 7 year term may be impeached, as the conflict between the Constitutional provision allowing for impeachment and the provision allowing for a 7 year term is not resolved within the body of the document. Were the Supreme Court to certify Rivera-Soto incapacitated, the Governor would be obligated to form a 3 person commission to consider whether or not Rivera-Soto should be retired; arguably, though, Rivera-Soto does not meet the legal definition of incapacitated. <br /><br />Thus, it seems that little can be done to remove the Associate Justice. It is possible that Chief Justice Rabner may appoint a replacement Justice to render opinions during which Rivera-Soto has promised to abstain. In fact, that may be the only solution, if in fact it could be called a solution.<br /><br />And so New Jersey finds itself in the midst of a Constitutional crisis. Who the ultimate winners and losers will be remains unclear, other than the taxpayers who have already lost.<br /><br />But it seems that there is a silver lining for Associate Justice Rivera-Soto. A Wall Street Journal editorial praised the Justice for refusing to participate in a political impasse, giving credit to the Justice for standing up against a power grab. One could well imagine a future in politics for the Associate Justice who just said "no."Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-89305837005760486282010-12-21T13:33:00.003-05:002010-12-21T13:39:53.431-05:00Will Barbour's Flub Be Christie's Gain?In a previous post I posited that Chris Christie would not run for president in 2012 because Haley Barbour was running. As head of the Republican Governor's Association, Barbour spent $7 million on Christie's gubernatorial campaign, Barbour has proven to be a staunch Christie supporter, creating a 20 minute RGA infomercial on Christie's election. And since Christie is primarily a fundraiser, he will never bite any hand that feeds him; thus, he is not about to challenge Barbour for the Republican nomination.<br /><br />But it seems Mr. Barbour has made some racially insensitive comments, saying (among other things) that he didn't remember segregation as being so bad. It may be that Barbour's best contribution to the 2012 campaign would be as fundraiser.<br /><br />So, should Barbour concede that he is not ready for prime time, would he support a Christie run?Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-61271957049060613912010-12-09T10:35:00.003-05:002010-12-09T10:58:34.057-05:00Quote Of Note: Tom Emmer Gets It RightMinnesota is becoming my favorite state (next to New Jersey, that is).<br /><br />In November, both houses of Minnesota's legislature went from Democratic majorities to Republican control. However, the governorship went from a Republican to a Democrat, by a narrow margin. I find that fascinating.<br /><br />Regarding the gubernatorial election, yesterday Republican Tom Emmer conceded to Democrat Mark Dayton after a recount confirmed Dayton's razor-thin lead. In so doing, Emmer precluded the possibility that Minnesota's next governor would not be seated by January 3rd, leaving Republican Tim Pawlenty in the governor's chair until the election was resolved. Such an outcome would have echoed Minnesota's contested 2008 senatorial campaign, which caused an 8 month delay in seating Senator Al Franken.<br /><br />The Wall Street Journal quotes Emmer as saying the following:<br /><br />"Some have suggested that I should consider contesting the election, if any good faith basis exists, because Minnesota might then have a Republican governor and a Republican legislature until this contest is resolved. I disagree. We must address questions raised by recent elections in this state, but I do not believe a delay in seating the next governor will help unite us or move our state forward."<br /><br />We should all applaud Mr. Dayton's decision to put the interests of Minnesota voters over his personal ambitions and partisan politics. In so doing, he proves himself to be someone who belongs in elected office and we should all look forward to his future electoral successes.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-59901605942277904722010-12-08T21:21:00.004-05:002010-12-08T21:50:17.105-05:00Education Reform 2.0: Will Chris Christie Make The Grade?For some time now, it has been clear that New Jersey hearts Michelle Rhee. Rumor has it that Clifford Janey was axed to make room for Ms. Rhee to do for Newark schools what she did in D.C., a plan derailed when Mark Zuckerberg donated $100 million provided Cory Booker got the credit. Chris Christie then offered Ms. Rhee Bret Schundler's old job as Education Commissioner, but by then Ms. Rhee had soured on the Garden State.<br /><br />In the interim, D.C rejected Ms. Rhee's divisive approach to reform by deciding not to re-elect Adrian Fenty for mayor. Rhee resigned shortly after her sponsor, Fenty, was defeated, and has announced the formation of a national school advocacy group. <br /><br />And in short order, D.C. has moved beyond the Rhee era. D.C. teachers elected a new union head who wants to overhaul Ms. Rhee's teacher evaluation system. Interim D.C. Chancellor Kaya Henderson is open to tinkering with the system. Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers, sees the leadership changes in D.C. as a chance for a fresh start and a collaborative (as opposed to a combative) approach. It is fair to say that D.C. is now on its second wave of education reform.<br /><br />There does seem to be a trend away from pugilism in the education debate. Controversial New York City Chancellor Joe Klein has resigned to take a job with News Corp. When Mayor Bloomberg sought to replace Klein with Cathleen Black, a candidate who had no education experience, he was stymied until he agreed to pair Black with an experienced education professional as a deputy. Thus, New York City has also chosen a more collaborative approach to education reform.<br /><br />With Rhee and Klein out of their chancellor positions, that leaves only Chris Christie as a national figure demonizing teachers unions. Playing the bully has been so successful for Christie that it seems hard to imagine that he will want to join the second wave. And it also seems hard to imagine Barbara Keshisian making peace with the Governor any time soon.<br /><br />So only time will tell if New Jersey will catch the second wave of education reform and move beyond its Rhee rah-rah-ism, or if New Jersey's education reform efforts will stay stuck in a partisan quagmire.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-21110248557165502032010-12-08T11:46:00.005-05:002010-12-08T12:03:27.519-05:00Quote Of Note: A Christie-Style Expansion Of State PowerIt seems Republicans in North Jersey are peeved with the Governor's proposed cap on school superintendent pay. Rich towns want to be able to hire good superintendents to protect the quality of their schools and the value of their homes.<br /><br />It seems these Republicans believe that schools should be run by local municipalities, and not by the State. Which is consistent with the Republican ideal of smaller government.<br /><br />With respect to the pay cap, the Wall Street Journal quotes Brigid Harrison, political science professor at Montclair State University, as saying that "[i]t's a Chris Christie-style means to an end -- expanding state power to cut local government costs -- that could be hard for traditional conservatives to defend. This flies in the face of some of the ideological considerations that really have informed many of these decisions."Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-35283494185855735072010-12-08T11:41:00.003-05:002010-12-08T11:45:18.724-05:00Quote Of Note: Bill Pascrell on the Tax Bill CompromisePresident Obama has agreed to a temporary extension of the Bush-era tax cuts to all Americans, even those making over $250,000 a year. Liberals are outraged at Obama's caving in to the Republicans.<br /><br />As reported by the Wall Street Journal, in describing the President's decision as a mistake, Bill Pascrell (D.NJ) said: "If this is the playbook for the next two years, we want out because Democrats in the House are irrelevant."Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-13729878315134381842010-12-08T11:33:00.002-05:002010-12-08T11:41:06.045-05:00Quote Of Note: Pastor Tom Brown of El PasoEl Paso voters have approved a ballot measure preventing the city from providing health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees. In addition, due to the vagueness of the wording of the measure, El Paso is now forbidden to provide health benefits to retired policemen and firemen.<br /><br />As reported by the Wall Street Journal, the measure asks El Paso residents to embrace "traditional family values" by limiting benefits to "city employees and their legal spouses and dependent children."<br /><br />The ballot measure was promoted in large part by a conservative pastor named Tom Brown of the Word of Life Church. Brown has promised to oppose any attempt to amend the ballot measure to allow for same-sex benefits.<br /><br />Says Brown: "I'm feeling a call from God to get more involved in our government."<br /><br />This has nothing to do with New Jersey, I just loved the quote.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-18585853112740804912010-12-06T16:50:00.003-05:002010-12-06T17:17:03.061-05:00Wait Just A Minnesota MinuteIn the Minnesota gubernatorial election, it seems that an almost-concluded recount will confirm that the Democratic-Farmer-Labor candidate Mark Dayton has beaten Republican Tom Emmer. By a very, very narrow margin, mind you, but still, by enough.<br /><br />Why does this matter to New Jersey? Because this race decided who was to succeed Tim Pawlenty as Governor. Like Chris Christie, Pawlenty is a conservative Republican who governed a blue state. Pawlenty and Christie have pursued similar agendas -- alleging to have balanced budgets without raising taxes and catering to social conservatives. So, if history is unkind to Pawlenty's legacy in Minnesota, it may give Christie pause in pursuing the same policies as Pawlenty. Or at the very least provide Christie's detractors with some grist for their mills.<br /><br />And Pawlenty leaves some pretty big issues on the table. For example, although Pawlenty claims to have balanced Minnesota's budget and to actually have a $399 million surplus, he did so in part by deferring some payments to the next 2 year budget cycle, such as K-12 education expenses. So not only does Minnesota's structural deficit remain, but overdue bills from the Pawlenty administration are driving the deficit for the next budget cycle to $6.2 billion. Which echoes Governor Christie's refusal to put aside money for public employee pensions and the State's structural Transportation Trust Fund deficit.<br /><br />Interestingly enough, Dayton confirmed that, if elected, he would raise taxes on Minnesotans. Kind of like that other famous Minnesotan, Walter Mondale. But apparently, Minnesotans like hearing the truth (it was the only state to go for Mondale in his 1984 presidential campaign against Reagan). So if Pawlenty leaves office and the new Minnesota Governor starts saying that Pawlenty's policies were so much smoke and mirrors, leaving Minnesota in a worse state than before, so that tax increases are the only solution, it could be a message that resonates with moderates.<br /><br />There may yet be some drama left for Minnesota as a result of this year's gubernatorial election. If Emmer challenges Dayton's win in court, Dayton may not be confirmed by January 3. In which case Pawlenty says he will stay on.<br /><br />Minnesota has until January 15 to decide whether or not to accept $1.4 billion in Medicaid funds tied to the new federal health care law. If Pawlenty is governor on January 15, he will decline the money -- even though this was a big issue in the campaign and the candidate who said he would accept the money, Dayton, won. The reason Pawlenty won't accept the money is because he personally does not believe in big government and thus must decline the money -- which translates into a statement that accepting ObamaCare money will anger the tea party activists Pawlenty needs to survive the 2012 Republican presidential primaries.<br /><br />So stay focused on Minnesota is you want some help reading New Jersey's political tea leaves.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-64583249447235668302010-12-05T12:47:00.004-05:002010-12-05T13:09:52.147-05:00Finally, Democrats Say It Out Loud: It's About Jobs, Stupid.I heard Senators Reid and Kerry both say, on Meet The Press, that tax cuts for the rich have not created any jobs over the past ten years, and thus it is foolish to continue to lower taxes on the rich for the purpose of creating jobs.<br /><br />Says Senator Kerry, we cannot "cut" our way to competitiveness, we need to invest in our future.<br /><br />Here in New Jersey, Steve Sweeney and Sheila Oliver are promoting a "Back To Work NJ" legislation program of about 30 bills. These bills include reforming business tax codes to base corporate business taxes on a company's sales in New Jersey (called "single sales factor"), eliminating a company's share of employees and physical assets in New Jersey as factors in determining a tax bill; a job training program for the unemployed which allows for up to 24 hours a week of workplace training from a potential employer for up to six weeks; and giving senior citizens whose total earnings fall under $100,000 an exemption from state income taxes on any income from a pension or deferred compensation plan.<br /><br />Finally, a major political party recognizes that there is more to this debate than discussing how much to tax and how much to spend. Like the recent debt commission report, there is the understanding that strategic tax changes, strategic spending and fresh ideas are what we need. Please, can we stop having the same discussions we've been having since Reagan's first term.<br /><br />I can only hope that this is the beginning of some adult conversations in the run-up to 2012.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-68009227093671280992010-11-27T00:27:00.006-05:002010-11-27T00:37:33.029-05:00Biting The Hand That FeedsHoboken has decided to join Parsippany in bringing suit to challenge the Governor's alleged right to limit superintendent pay.<br /><br />At issue is local rule. Municipalities have control over their schools, not the State. And the legal challenges assert that the State lacks the authority to limit superintendent pay.<br /><br />As a matter of political reality, the Governor seems to have peed in his own backyard. Rich Republican towns know that high school quality maintains property values, and these towns do not like being told that they cannot decide to hire top-notch talent for their school systems. And so it would seem that the Governor's supporters are none too pleased with this particular policy.<br /><br />Since Chris Christie is first and foremost a fundraiser, it is truly unusual for him to be at odds with his financial backers.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974614787780053617.post-1244902576003227712010-11-27T00:06:00.003-05:002010-11-27T00:24:44.772-05:00The 2012 Election BeginsThe Republican Presidential primary has begun. Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney are at the head of the pack. Republican Governors Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty are also frequently mentioned.<br /><br />And then there's Haley Barbour. In truth, Barbour's candidacy is at least one major factor influencing Chris Christie's decision not to run. As head of the Republican Governors Association, Haley Barbour funneled about $7 million into Christie's gubernatorial campaign. Since Christie has a policy of rewarding those who help him, he raised over $8 million for the RGA and will not run against Barbour.<br /><br />As Republican governors, Haley and Christie have a lot in common. Both have been lobbyists and fundraisers. Under cover of the economic downturn both slashed state spending while remaining popular with voters. Both men criticize the Federal government's excessive spending while accepting Federal stimulus dollars. <br /><br />And as candidates, both men promised not to raise taxes. Barbour, however, broke that pledge. He reinstated a hospital tax used to fund Medicaid and increased cigarette taxes.<br /><br />So it would seem that the reception Barbour gets on the campaign trail will inform Chris Christie's decisions as governor. If Barbour is pilloried by conservatives in the primary race for raising taxes, then certainly Christie will stand firm on his pledge. But if Barbour gets a pass on his tax increases, it creates a window of opportunity here in New Jersey.<br /><br />Let the games begin.Eric Goldmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479065412319774100noreply@blogger.com0