Showing posts with label Steve Sweeney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steve Sweeney. Show all posts

Saturday, July 2, 2011

State Commission of Investigation in Chris Christie's Pocket

What with the death of public media in New Jersey and all, I thought it was time to fire up the blog again.

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.

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.

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.

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.

One wonders the full parameters of THAT deal.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Finally, 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.

Says Senator Kerry, we cannot "cut" our way to competitiveness, we need to invest in our future.

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.

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.

I can only hope that this is the beginning of some adult conversations in the run-up to 2012.

Friday, August 6, 2010

Quote of Note: It's Still The Checks and Balances, Stupid

Governor Christie chose to honor the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the U.S Supreme Court by reminding New Jerseyans that our State Supreme Court remains shy one Justice. Said Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak:

“From nomination by President Obama to Senate confirmation yesterday, it took just 88 days for Elena Kagan to become the 112th Justice of the Supreme Court. Back at home, after 96 days without a hearing, there is no good and valid reason for the failure to give [New Jersey Supreme Court nominee] Anne Patterson the same consideration and deference.”

What Drewniak fails to mention is that there is no good and valid reason why there is a vacancy on the State Supreme Court to begin with.

Governor Christie chose not to re-nominate Justice John Wallace to the Court because the Governor wants to pack the Court with Justices who will overturn Abbott v. Burke and the line of cases that followed it. These cases require the State to re-allocate suburban property taxes to urban school districts. Had he been re-nominated, Wallace would have been able to serve for a little over 2 years before reaching the mandatory retirement age.

In response to charges that Governor Christie was politicizing the court by failing to consider Justice Wallace’s candidacy solely on his qualifications and not on his politics, the Governor claimed to have the right under the State constitution to boot Wallace. The Governor is a firm believer in using every arm of government as a political tool, just as Karl Rove used the Justice Department under Alberto Gonzalez as a political tool.

So how is it that Wallace has not been replaced yet? It seems that the same State constitution that allowed the Governor to sack Justice Wallace lacks a requirement for the Senate to confirm any replacement nominated by the Governor. Senate President Steve Sweeney says he will not consider swearing in a replacement until Wallace’s term has expired. i.e., for about 2 years.

Moreover, it seems that the Constitution was drafted with this type of stand-off in mind. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner has the right to leave Wallace’s seat open or temporarily elevate the most senior Superior Court judge or a retired state Supreme Court judge. In other words, the Constitution includes a check on the Governor’s power over the judiciary.

So, if the Governor wants to exercise the full range of his Constitutional powers, he has no right to cry fowl when the legislature and the judiciary follow suit.

And what of Anne Patterson? At first glance, she seems to be an innocent victim. However, it is clear that she has promised the Governor that she will vote to overturn Abbott v. Burke and its progeny. In other words, she is prepared to decide cases on political factors and not solely on the facts of the case itself. Which means she has proven herself unworthy to sit on any bench anywhere.

Monday, July 5, 2010

Deal Or No Deal

This Saturday, Governor Christie and Senate President Steve Sweeney held a press conference to announce a deal on a property tax cap. The agreement is a 2% cap on property tax increases with only four exceptions: (i) rising pension and health care costs, (ii) debt payments, (iii) rising school enrollment and (iv) states of emergency.

Two facts quickly emerged from this press conference. First, Assembly President Sheila Oliver is not on board yet. This is a deal between the Governor and the Senate President only.

Second, this compromise allows municipalities to increase property taxes for pension and health care costs. Which is a big win for public employee unions, who are now free to negotiate contractual increases without the limitation imposed by a hard cap. Which is why everyone's attention now turns to the "tool kit," which will strengthen the hand of municipalities in negotiating with unions.

So it seems that Chris Christie may have fallen into exactly the trap forseen by the Wall Street Journal on its editorial page this weekend:

"One temptation for Mr. Christie would be to settle for too little reform when his political capital is at its highest, which was Arnold Schwarzenegger's original mistake in California. When Arnold proposed more far-reaching reforms later, the public mood had changed and he was routed. Mr. Christie's best reform opportunity is now, and taxpayers everywhere should hope he succeeds."

So what we have is an odd form of political theatre. The Governor wanted to announce a deal before people started showing up for 4th of July fireworks that had been cancelled. So we have a cap that has a hole big enough to drive a union contract through and a deal with half of the legislature.

What this means for the Governor who was building a national reputation as a union buster, or for the taxpayers, remains to be seen. But, from my viewpoint, it is a shocking reversal of position for the Governor, who has been making teachers the scapegoat for the State's fiscal problems for some time now. Without a hard cap, the "tool kit" better include a sledgehammer.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Governor was once again faced with a revolt from within his own party. And if I were Sheila Oliver I would hold out for $7.5 million for women's health before agreeing to anything.