The 12th District Legislators would like to voice their opposition to the plan to run the Monmouth-Ocean-Middlesex (MOM) rail line through the Borough of Red Bank.
“The MOM line was supposed to run from Ocean County through Middlesex County,” said Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon, “hence its name. Western Monmouth County needs to be connected to a rail line, and the last thing Red Bank needs is more traffic being backed-up because of trains going right through the middle of the town.”
The agreement does not contain an earlier option that would run a rail line through Monmouth Junction between Lakehurst and the Northeast Corridor line in South Brunswick., nor a third alternative that would run a line on new tracks along the Henry Hudson trail.
“Red Bank is a difficult enough town to get through during peak hours,” said Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande. “I can’t imagine the mess this plan would cause if it’s implemented. I just can’t see the point in adding additional trains and slowing traffic in Red Bank and surrounding towns, while not adding service to western Monmouth County, an area we know is expanding and in need of this type of transportation.”
“This is the least desirable of all of the options that have been looked at,” said Senator Jennifer Beck. “It’s not just Red Bank, but Shrewsbury, Tinton Falls, Little Silver and Fair Haven that will have to deal with increased traffic and fewer available parking spaces for more riders. Of course funding is an issue, but without the line reaching out significantly to western Monmouth County and into Middlesex, this rail line will have completely missed its purpose.”
Sunday, May 31, 2009
4 Minutes
That's how long Steve Lonegan says it will take him to return New Jersey to greatness.
Not 4 or 8 years. 4 minutes.
I replayed the ad to make sure I heard that right. Sure enough, the quote was even highlighted in text across my TV screen.
Not 4 or 8 years. 4 minutes.
I replayed the ad to make sure I heard that right. Sure enough, the quote was even highlighted in text across my TV screen.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Christie: "Jon Corzine Can't Hide From Me After Tuesday"
Photo: Freeholder Candidate John Curley and Chris Christie on their way into their rally at Bachstadt’s Tavern
Addressing a crowd of about 200 enthusiastic supporters at Bachstadt’s Tavern in the Port Monmouth section of Middletown, Gubernatorial front runner Chris Christie declared that he was Jon Corzine's worst nightmare.
"Jon Corzine owns the NJ Democratic Party lock stock and barrel. He paid $100 million for it," Christie said, referring to the amount that Corzine spent to get elected U.S. Senator and Governor. "Now he wants to buy the Republican Party too. His friends in Washington have spent $1.2 million in negative attack ads against me, trying to keep Republicans from nominating me on Tuesday. It is not going to work."
Photo: Some dude with really hairy arms and legs, Sheriff Kim Guadagno, County Clerk Claire French and Matawan Mayor Paul Buccellato (background) cheer Christie's remarks
Addressing a crowd of about 200 enthusiastic supporters at Bachstadt’s Tavern in the Port Monmouth section of Middletown, Gubernatorial front runner Chris Christie declared that he was Jon Corzine's worst nightmare.
"Jon Corzine owns the NJ Democratic Party lock stock and barrel. He paid $100 million for it," Christie said, referring to the amount that Corzine spent to get elected U.S. Senator and Governor. "Now he wants to buy the Republican Party too. His friends in Washington have spent $1.2 million in negative attack ads against me, trying to keep Republicans from nominating me on Tuesday. It is not going to work."
Photo: Some dude with really hairy arms and legs, Sheriff Kim Guadagno, County Clerk Claire French and Matawan Mayor Paul Buccellato (background) cheer Christie's remarks
Christie told his supporters of an event in New Brunswick last night where both he and Corzine spoke. "Corzine did what he always does when we are scheduled to speak in the same room. He insists on speaking first and then runs out of the room before before I speak. Turn out the vote on Tuesday, and Jon Corzine won't be able to hide from me anymore."
Christie told the crowd, "Tuesday is looking pretty good night now, but we can't take anything for granted. We need to turn out the vote."
NJ Schools: Best In the County....
Just ask Corzine's Education Commissioner Lucile Davy, who told the Star Ledger:
From the movie's website:
That New Jersey's Education system is a broken and corrupt institution that warehouses kids while enriching its employees is so obvious to anyone educated outside of the system that the debate is an insulting fantasy.
Why would the NJEA and the NEA spend millions of members dues (taxpayer dollars ultimately) on advertising,lobbying and political contributions, when they have no competition if what they were about was educating kids rather than enriching themselves? The answer is, they wouldn't.
I applaud Bowdon for making this movie. I also applaud Bob Ingle, who makes a brief appearance in the movie, The Star Ledger, and any other media outlet that brings attention to the movie and the issue, for finally raising awareness and telling the truth about this travesty.
New Jersey's disgraceful education system and its funding should be the number one issue in the up coming gubernatorial campaign. If we reform our education system into an institution that actually educates, that is truly thorough and efficient, we also solve our property tax problem and our urban problems.
Chris Christie has been alone in calling our education system a "moral failure." He is absolutely right about that. The failure is not only in the Abbott districts. It is throughout the system.
If we are going to Save Jersey and save our children, we must address education head on. We must stand up to the NJEA and the rest of the trough swillers of the system make create a system that performs well at a realistic cost. It can be done and it must be done.
Davy was defending New Jersey's school system against the premise of Filmmaker Bob Bowdon's The Cartel, that "public education serves its employees, not its children.""I would put New Jersey students up against any students in the country on any measure, no matter what it is," state Education Commissioner Lucille Davy, who is interviewed in the film, said this week. "While we have some students not performing at the levels we know they must, New Jersey has many, many high-performing, really outstanding schools."
From the movie's website:
"For at least a generation, American public schools have been growing progressively worse. According to the U.S. Department of Education national testing, only 35% of American high school seniors are proficient in reading. And fewer than one-in-four, 23%, are proficient in math. On the global stage, America ranks last in educational effectiveness among large industrialized countries despite the highest spending per student in the world.
It presents something of a conundrum. How has the richest and most innovative society on earth suddenly lost the ability to teach its children at a level that other modern countries consider "basic"?
If the problem is that we're not spending enough on schools, which many people believe, it's instructive to study the U.S. state that spends more than any other per student: New Jersey
With spending as high as $483,000 per classroom (confirmed by NJ Education Department records), New Jersey students fare only slightly better than the national average in reading and math, and rank 37th in average SAT scores. And not even half of NJ's high school freshmen, despite the state's enormous "investment," are academically ready for college four years later.
Is anyone watching where the money goes? How much actually reaches the classroom? And if certain changes in the system would benefit children, but not necessarily the staff, would the adults running the system endorse those changes?
"The Cartel" investigates what is causing this vast underachievement and what can be done to turn things around. "
That New Jersey's Education system is a broken and corrupt institution that warehouses kids while enriching its employees is so obvious to anyone educated outside of the system that the debate is an insulting fantasy.
Why would the NJEA and the NEA spend millions of members dues (taxpayer dollars ultimately) on advertising,lobbying and political contributions, when they have no competition if what they were about was educating kids rather than enriching themselves? The answer is, they wouldn't.
I applaud Bowdon for making this movie. I also applaud Bob Ingle, who makes a brief appearance in the movie, The Star Ledger, and any other media outlet that brings attention to the movie and the issue, for finally raising awareness and telling the truth about this travesty.
New Jersey's disgraceful education system and its funding should be the number one issue in the up coming gubernatorial campaign. If we reform our education system into an institution that actually educates, that is truly thorough and efficient, we also solve our property tax problem and our urban problems.
Chris Christie has been alone in calling our education system a "moral failure." He is absolutely right about that. The failure is not only in the Abbott districts. It is throughout the system.
If we are going to Save Jersey and save our children, we must address education head on. We must stand up to the NJEA and the rest of the trough swillers of the system make create a system that performs well at a realistic cost. It can be done and it must be done.
Bucky is Gone
I hope he feeds a family, human or otherwise.
It is noteworthy that "the person" who took Bucky away and I spent more time speculating about whether or not it was legal to remove Bucky, and what the consequences of the removal would be if any governmental authority makes an issue of it, then we did loading Bucky onto a truck. "The person" wanted something to cover the deer with, so that it couldn't be seen on the back of the truck, just in case.
"The person" also doesn't want to be named or to have any publicity.
Free county, America.
Free Venison
My Tax Dollars Not Working
I rarely use this blog to promote my personal concerns, but normal channels aren't working.
The tasty creature pictured above met its demise early Friday morning in front of my business on Route 36 in the Belford section of Middletown, the best run municipality in the State of New Jersey.
The Middletown Health Department tells me since my business is located on a State road that they have informed the State ofBambi's Bucky's demise. The nice lady wouldn't tell me who in the State or which department. Since it is now Saturday and the State is closed, I don't expect any State workers or contractors to take Bucky away until Monday or Tuesday.
Despite the recession, I have customer appointments set up for most of the day. There might even be some walk in traffic. It would be great if Bucky was gone before they arrived at 571 Route 36 in Belford, NJ.
I rarely use this blog to promote my personal concerns, but normal channels aren't working.
The tasty creature pictured above met its demise early Friday morning in front of my business on Route 36 in the Belford section of Middletown, the best run municipality in the State of New Jersey.
The Middletown Health Department tells me since my business is located on a State road that they have informed the State of
Despite the recession, I have customer appointments set up for most of the day. There might even be some walk in traffic. It would be great if Bucky was gone before they arrived at 571 Route 36 in Belford, NJ.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Why Do The Democrats Want to Face Lonegan?
The ads almost write themselves.
Our friends at InTheLobby quote veteran NJ GOP strategist Bill Pascoe:
Our friends at InTheLobby quote veteran NJ GOP strategist Bill Pascoe:
If there’s anyone who knows how Democrats play in this state, it’s Bill Pascoe.
He’s been on the wrong end of more than one high-profile statewide race in New Jersey; and his opposite was Steve DeMicco, who has been the leading Democratic strategist in New Jersey the last several years, and who – not surprisingly – is managing Gov. Corzine’s re-election campaign again this year.
In an insightful analysis of the Jersey race for Congressional Quarterly Politics, here’s how Pascoe describes DeMicco’s campaign tactics:
The main tool in DeMicco's toolbox is a hammer, and he finds a way to make every problem look like a nail. For DeMicco, the slogan he wraps around the GOP nominee's neck -- any GOP nominee's neck -- is "Outside the Mainstream." It makes no difference if the nominee is truly a card-carrying conservative (like Bret Schundler, whose 2001 campaign for governor I managed) or a blazing moderate (like Doug Forrester, whose 2002 campaign for Senate I managed). I've seen his campaigns produce ads that create such an ugly image of the opposition that the GOP nominee's own mother might have serious doubts about voting for her child.
Any one who paid any attention to New Jersey elections the last few years know this is true. Democrats went to school after the Republicans hung Gov. Florio’s $2.8 billion tax hike around every Democrat’s neck in 1991 – and they haven’t looked back since.
He also notes that even after weeks of primary campaigning, polls show that the Republican candidates are still largely unknown to voters, giving Corzine – and his vastly larger pocketbook – plenty of ammunition to help fill in the blank.
So who does Pascoe think is the better choice for the GOP – former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan, or Assemblyman Rick Merkt?
Christie. And here’s why:
I'm not running campaigns any more, but knowing the power of the attack ads that are sure to come, I think Lonegan is the candidate who would be easiest to target. This is a man who once held a press conference mocking state affirmative action policies, and scheduled it on the holiday we use to celebrate the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. If that wasn't enough of a poke in the eye, his press conference was staged on Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, in downtown Newark.
The ads almost write themselves.
Should Lonegan win the nomination, the moderate Republicans in New Jersey who raise the big money for the GOP nominees can be expected to sit on their hands. Lonegan would be vastly outspent, and would have only enough money in the fall campaign for radio and direct mail advertising, with just a bit of broadcast television advertising thrown in at the end.
You can read Pascoe’s entire piece here.
Lonegan Will Be In Two Places At One Time
This just in from the Lonegan campaign:
MEDIA ADVISORY
From the Lonegan campaign two hours ago:
Media Advisory
I suppose it is possible, if there is no traffic, that Steve could get from Trenton to New Brunswick in forty-five minutes, and then make it to Haddon Township in 30 minutes. Possible, but not likely.
A spokesperson for the Christie campaign told me that Chris will not be at the Mulshine Roundtable. Christie's schedule is as follows:
MEDIA ADVISORY
Gubernatorial Round Table Hosted by Star-Ledger Columnist Paul Mulshine
Saturday, May 30, 2009
3:45 - 5:00 pm
Americans for Prosperity Defending the American Dream Summit
East Brunswick Hilton
3 Tower Center Boulevard
East Brunswick, NJ
Hosted by Star-Ledger Columnist Paul Mulshine, all candidates will be present.
From the Lonegan campaign two hours ago:
Media Advisory
Who: Mayor Steve Lonegan, New Jersey Gubernatorial Candidate
What: Victory Lap Around New Jersey
Please join us in your home county, or travel with the next Governor of New Jersey, Steve Lonegan, on his weekend victory lap around NJ. Press is welcome at all events.
When: Saturday, May 30 Beginning at 10:00AM
Where: Detailed schedule of all events and times is below
SATURDAY, MAY 30
Ocean County
10:00 – 11:00 AM
The Surf Club
1900 Ocean Avenue
Ortley Beach, NJ
Middlesex County
12:00 – 1:00 PM
Embassy Suites
121 Centennial Avenue
Piscataway, NJ
Mercer County
2:00 – 3:00 PM
Trenton Farmer's Market
960 Spruce Street
Trenton, NJ
Camden County
5:30 – 6:30 PM
Eminent Domain Rally and Press Conference
Sulock Insurance Company
221 Haddon Avenue
Haddon Township, NJ
Atlantic County
7:00 – 9:00 PM
The Irish Pub
164 St. James Place
Atlantic City, NJ
I suppose it is possible, if there is no traffic, that Steve could get from Trenton to New Brunswick in forty-five minutes, and then make it to Haddon Township in 30 minutes. Possible, but not likely.
A spokesperson for the Christie campaign told me that Chris will not be at the Mulshine Roundtable. Christie's schedule is as follows:
9:30 AM TAKE BACK NEW JERSEY KICK-OFF EVENT
Christie for Governor HQ at 1719 Route 10 East in Parsippany
11:00 AM NORTHERN MONMOUTH COUNTY TAKE BACK NEW JERSEY RALLY
Bachstadt’s Tavern, 8 Bray Avenue, Middletown
1:00 PM SOUTHERN MONMOUTH COUNTY TAKE BACK NEW JERSEY RALLY
Glendola Fire House, 3404 Belmar Boulevard, Wall Township
2:15 PM POINT PLEASANT BOARDWALK WALK
Begins at Jenkinson Aquarium. 300 Ocean Avenue, Point Pleasant
4:00 PM OCEAN COUNTY DINER STOP
Crystal Diner, 2 Route 37 East, Toms River
5:00 PM SOUTHERN OCEAN COUNTY MEET AND GREET
Pinewood Estate Fire House, 99 Route 72, Barnegat
7:00 PM ATLANTIC COUNTY HEADQUARTERS DROP-BY
Atlantic County GOP Headquarters, 3117 Fire Road, Cardiff
Middletown School Board intends to use stimulus package to RAISE your taxes
More Good Spam:
My name is Laura Wilton and you should know that I am a fiscal conservative and
an advocate for transparency in government. I am writing because I am incensed
at the financial irresponsibility and deceptiveness being used by the Middletown
Board of Education to raise your taxes.
During this school year taxpayers received news from the Board that a new Full
Day FREE preschool would be provided to residents in September of 2009. This
would be followed by a new FREE full day kindergarten program in 2010. What
they didn't tell you was how their failure to research their proposal would
result in the program being cancelled and leaving taxpayers to foot the the bill
for their hasty decisions and contract cancellations.
Specifically, the district needed 129 low income families (family of four
earning under $39,000) to register for the preschool program in order to secure
their funding. Prior to the registration, they contracted to lease and renovate
space in Hazlet to house the preschool program. They also contracted a teacher
to run the program at a salary of approximately $100,000. They received well
under 100 applications. So, they lost the funding and cancelled the lease,
renovation contracts and employment contract. The public has not been told of
any of this or its cost.
Now faced with criticism because many in the district wanted full day
kindergarten, they are attempting to use ARRA (stimulus money) and IDEA (for
students with disabilities) funds to fund full day kindergarten. Please note
that these monies are intended by the federal government to provide a ONE TIME
boost to local governments. Municipalities have been specifically warned not to
use these monies to fund programs that are continuing; thereby requiring taxes
to be raised to keep them going. While I know many of you desire full day
kindergarten, the way the Board is approaching this issue is wrong. They should
propose full day kindergarten to the voters in a budget. We just passed a
budget last month that had no mention of full day kindergarten. What they
intend is to use stimulus money to get it going and then when the money runs
out, put it to the voters as "if you don't pass our increased budget you'll lose
your full day kindergarten." This is underhanded to say the least.
Moreover, while keeping their intentions secret from the public, they have
announced to the teachers and aides of the Multiage Kindergarten that their
program for developmentally immature children will be cut in order to make room
for their new plan. The Multiage Kindergarten saves taxpayers money. It does
so, by identifying children who will struggle in a typical kindergarten before
they even begin. Many of these children would otherwise repeat a grade early in
their education. Having their issues addressed at the beginning of their
academic career provides them the opportunity to succeed. The cost savings are
realized in less Administrative, Child Study Team and Special Education
services. The students benefit academically, socially and emotionally from
success in school. Cutting the Multiage Kindergarten will cost us more in tax
dollars.
I urge you to attend a meeting on Board's proposal on Tuesday June 2 at 7 pm at
Middletown High School North and for you to forward this to all Middletown
residents.
Thank you for your consideration,
Laura Wilton
My name is Laura Wilton and you should know that I am a fiscal conservative and
an advocate for transparency in government. I am writing because I am incensed
at the financial irresponsibility and deceptiveness being used by the Middletown
Board of Education to raise your taxes.
During this school year taxpayers received news from the Board that a new Full
Day FREE preschool would be provided to residents in September of 2009. This
would be followed by a new FREE full day kindergarten program in 2010. What
they didn't tell you was how their failure to research their proposal would
result in the program being cancelled and leaving taxpayers to foot the the bill
for their hasty decisions and contract cancellations.
Specifically, the district needed 129 low income families (family of four
earning under $39,000) to register for the preschool program in order to secure
their funding. Prior to the registration, they contracted to lease and renovate
space in Hazlet to house the preschool program. They also contracted a teacher
to run the program at a salary of approximately $100,000. They received well
under 100 applications. So, they lost the funding and cancelled the lease,
renovation contracts and employment contract. The public has not been told of
any of this or its cost.
Now faced with criticism because many in the district wanted full day
kindergarten, they are attempting to use ARRA (stimulus money) and IDEA (for
students with disabilities) funds to fund full day kindergarten. Please note
that these monies are intended by the federal government to provide a ONE TIME
boost to local governments. Municipalities have been specifically warned not to
use these monies to fund programs that are continuing; thereby requiring taxes
to be raised to keep them going. While I know many of you desire full day
kindergarten, the way the Board is approaching this issue is wrong. They should
propose full day kindergarten to the voters in a budget. We just passed a
budget last month that had no mention of full day kindergarten. What they
intend is to use stimulus money to get it going and then when the money runs
out, put it to the voters as "if you don't pass our increased budget you'll lose
your full day kindergarten." This is underhanded to say the least.
Moreover, while keeping their intentions secret from the public, they have
announced to the teachers and aides of the Multiage Kindergarten that their
program for developmentally immature children will be cut in order to make room
for their new plan. The Multiage Kindergarten saves taxpayers money. It does
so, by identifying children who will struggle in a typical kindergarten before
they even begin. Many of these children would otherwise repeat a grade early in
their education. Having their issues addressed at the beginning of their
academic career provides them the opportunity to succeed. The cost savings are
realized in less Administrative, Child Study Team and Special Education
services. The students benefit academically, socially and emotionally from
success in school. Cutting the Multiage Kindergarten will cost us more in tax
dollars.
I urge you to attend a meeting on Board's proposal on Tuesday June 2 at 7 pm at
Middletown High School North and for you to forward this to all Middletown
residents.
Thank you for your consideration,
Laura Wilton
Corzine's Failures, Week 2
With the short week and the end of the month rush, I almost forgot that today is Friday and time for our new feature, Corzine's Failures
Every Friday until November 6 we will have a Corzine's Failures post that will include all the previously listed failures. November 6, 2009 will be the last day of the game when we enter the final entry: "Corzine failed to get re-elected."
Last week we got off to a good start with the following failures listed:
Corzine failed to sell our highways and increase tolls 800%
Corzine failed to reduce property taxes "40 in 4."
Corzine failed to ban the bikini wax.
Corzine failed to stop dual office holding as he was too busy being the master of half measures.
Corzine failed to keep the state open, literally.
Corzine failed to control excessive pork and Christmas tree spending, Chris Christie controlled it for him.
Corzine failed to attract jobs to New Jersey, outside of Government jobs.
Remember when Corzine wanted to close Nine State Parks because he couldn't figure out a better place to drop the ax? ... then COAH was looking for "vacant land" to build "affordable houses" on, hrm.
I'm not sure what Christie's plans might be for state parks, but it sounds like Lonegan is looking to build new state parks, maybe even one in Camden...
Corzine has failed at being accountable
Corzine has failed to disclose his emails with Carla.
Corzine failed to get his Katz her distemper shots.
I'll start this week off with the following failures:
Corzine failed to have any influence over the Democratic legislature. Codey and Roberts kept running the show, and half of the 17% sales tax increase went to "Christmas Tree Items."
Corzine failed to get Hillary Clinton nominated for President
Corzine failed to get a job in the Obama administration.
Please add to the list in the comments. Feel free to consult The Corzine Times for material.
Final Polls
MMM has two polls to conclude the primary campaign.
1) Who will you vote for? and 2) Who do you think will win?
Voting ends on Tuesday at 6PM. Have at it on the right.
1) Who will you vote for? and 2) Who do you think will win?
Voting ends on Tuesday at 6PM. Have at it on the right.
Asbury Park Press Endorses Chrisite, Rips Lonegan's Specifics
In an lengthy editorial, the Asbury Park Press endorsed Chris Christie for the GOP nomination for Governor, and ripped apart Steve Lonegan's "specifics."
On Lonegan's program, the APP said:
In other words, Lonegan doesn't have a plan. He has a sales pitch.
On Christie:
Both Christie and Lonegan will be making appearances in Monmouth County during the final days of the campaign.
Lonegan will be in Atlantic Highlands this evening at Sissy's on the Harbor from 7pm-8pm.
Christie will rally with his supporters tomorrow morning, 11am, at Bachstadt’s Tavern, 8 Bray Avenue, Middletown. Then off to Wall, 1PM at the Glendola Fire House, 3404 Belmar Blvd.
On Lonegan's program, the APP said:
"Lonegan has pledged to reduce the state budget from about $29 billion in 2009-10 — actually $31 billion if you include the $2 billion in one-time federal stimulus money — to $25 billion in 2010-11. That would require $6 billion in spending cuts to balance the budget — an amount roughly equivalent to the cost of running state government. About three-fourths of the state budget is expended on aid and grants to schools, municipalities and federal cost-sharing programs.
At the same time, Lonegan's proposed elimination of corporate taxes would deprive the state of another $2 billion in revenue. Even if he could get a Democratic-controlled Legislature to go along with his budget program — something that would never happen — his plan is totally unworkable. If he doesn't recognize that, he's a a fool; if he does but continues to insist it's doable, he's deceitful.
Asked at an editorial board meeting Tuesday to provide specifics about how he would reduce spending by $4 billion — let alone $6 billion or $8 billion — he repeated that he would eliminate three of the state's 16 departments and dramatically downsize a fourth. But he was unable to provide any specific numbers off the top of his head. He said he would have his staff e-mail the information to the Press later in that day. We're still waiting".
In other words, Lonegan doesn't have a plan. He has a sales pitch.
On Christie:
"Christie has offered some of the same medicine, but in a more realistic, temperate way. He understands the limitations of a Republican governor confronted with an entrenched Democratic Legislature. Lonegan apparently does not.
Christie's track record as U.S. Attorney demonstrates his ability to get things done — things his successors could not, or chose not, to do.
"Anybody but Corzine" isn't good enough on Tuesday. Christie represents the best opportunity for badly needed change in New Jersey."
Both Christie and Lonegan will be making appearances in Monmouth County during the final days of the campaign.
Lonegan will be in Atlantic Highlands this evening at Sissy's on the Harbor from 7pm-8pm.
Christie will rally with his supporters tomorrow morning, 11am, at Bachstadt’s Tavern, 8 Bray Avenue, Middletown. Then off to Wall, 1PM at the Glendola Fire House, 3404 Belmar Blvd.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Christie Is The Best Choice For Governor
As these "experts" and Assemblyman Rick Merkt have been saying, neither Chris Christie nor Steve Lonegan can deliver on their promises to New Jersey alone if elected. The eventual GOP gubernatorial nominee is going to need cooperation with many others to get elected, and cooperation, however reluctant, with the legislature and the Supreme Court to fix New Jersey's broken government after taking office.
That is why I am voting for Chris Christie on Tuesday.
Christie has demonstrated that he is a talented leader that can get the job done. He demonstrated as much as U.S. Attorney and he has demonstrated it during the primary campaign.
I was skeptical about Christie at the beginning of this race. That the establishment, and by that I don't mean the county committee members at conventions as Chris said during his first interview with me, I mean the county chairmen, the moneyed interests of the GOP and the members of the legislature, were nearly unanimous in their support of him concerned me.
The NJ GOP failed miserably when it last controlled Trenton. They have been completely out maneuvered by the Democrats since. I feared that Chris was just another Whitman/DiFrancesco/Franks/Forrester/Zimmer type Republican. I feared that he might not have what it takes to win against Corzine's money and Cryan's machine. More importantly, I feared that he might not have the mettle to govern in a way that will break up the status quo that is choking us and implement the badly needed reforms if he did get elected.
Chris has put those fears to rest. I am convinced that he has the qualities needed to beat Corzine. I am convinced that he has what it takes to govern New Jersey, to put us back on the path the prosperity and an extraordinary quality of life.
I believe that Chris has the intellect, temperament, vision and spine to stand up to the special interests on both sides of the aisle and to do so without a bloodbath.
Christie will appeal to Independents and Democrats. That is not a bad thing. Nor does it make him a "RINO."
They way he speaks of education, particularly in the Abbott districts, is what convinces me of that appeal. While the other candidates speak of equalizing education funding throughout the State, Chris is alone in addressing the "moral failure", i.e., the kids are not getting educated, as well as the financial failure of the Abbott experiment. Lonegan and Merkt are correct in addressing the excessive money wasted, but only Christie is sharing a vision of getting good value for our dollars while bringing excessive and wasteful spending under control.
Unlike some other pundits and critics, I don't have a problem with Christie's "lack of specifics." On the contrary, I like that he has used broad stokes to describe the direction that he intends to take New Jersey. I admire his discipline staying on message and in refusing to say things before he is believes it is appropriate to do so.
What good are specifics in a campaign anyway? They arm the opposition and the voters, often correctly, don't believe them anyway. Forrester's "30 in 3" was a sound bite to describe a complicated plan that was faulty to begin with. The math didn't work. Corzine answered with "40 in 4." The GOP has already started hammering him with his old ads.
The specifics of Lonegan's flat tax proposal has been the Achilles heal of his campaign. It is not a bad plan. But the Christie campaign, when it decided it need to engage Lonegan and make him famous, exploited the political weakness of Steve's flat tax plan, i.e. that it raises taxes on 50% of tax payers if you believe Lonegan or 70% of tax payers if you believe Christie.
The other candidates, Steve Lonegan and Rick Merkt have run disappointing campaigns.
I had high hopes for Lonegan. Win or lose, at the beginning of the campaign I hoped he would be positioned to be a meaningful leader within the NJ GOP when the primary was over. But the bridge burning, sophomoric campaign he has waged has made him unelectable in the general election. If Steve is to have a meaningful role in the GOP going forward, it will only be as a result of Christie's generosity. Christie would be wise to be so generous, but no one could blame him if he just let's Steve fade or rant away.
As for Rick Merkt, he's a smart guy with good ideas, but he doesn't want to be Governor. The only thing he's done to even be mentioned is to gather enough signatures to stay on the ballot. I don't know what Merkt's real motivation has been for this campaign, but becoming Governor was obviously not it.
Nominating Chris Christie is the best choice for New Jersey, and the best choice for the GOP.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
A New Website From The Republican Governors Association
Asbury Park Press Illustration: JEFF COLSON.
The Corzine Times
From the RGA:
In addition to being a great resource for getting the truth out about Corzine throughout the election season, this website will be a useful resource for MMM readers who are participating in the weekly Corzine's Failures posts.
The Corzine Times
From the RGA:
The idea behind the website is for it to be a one-stop shop for Jon Corzine news and a steady resource to turn to for the truth about Corzine.
We know that Corzine and his friends are going to spend massive amounts of money misleading New Jersey citizens about his broken promises and plan to hike taxes by $1billion. But New Jersey citizens will be able to turn to The Corzine Times to find the latest news about Jon Corzine – and the truth.
In addition to being a great resource for getting the truth out about Corzine throughout the election season, this website will be a useful resource for MMM readers who are participating in the weekly Corzine's Failures posts.
The NJ 101.5 GOP Debate
Chris Christie, Steve Lonegan, and Rick Merkt met for a debate on NJ 101.5 radio last night.
You can listen to the debate in six segments here:
Segment One: Introduction.
Segment Two
Segment Three
Segment Four
Segement Five
Segment Six
The Asbury Park Press published the Associated Press's coverage of the debate.
The Star Ledger's coverage is here.
The candidates will debate again this afternoon, 4-6, on WOR 710.
You can listen to the debate in six segments here:
Segment One: Introduction.
Segment Two
Segment Three
Segment Four
Segement Five
Segment Six
The Asbury Park Press published the Associated Press's coverage of the debate.
The Star Ledger's coverage is here.
The candidates will debate again this afternoon, 4-6, on WOR 710.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Spending Cuts Before Tax Cuts
By Bob McLeod
In a commentary entitled Christie: “I’ll Cut Spending Before Reducing Taxes,” posted on MMM, May 13, 2009, you noted that “Pro-growth Laffer/Kemp /Reagan economic theory is based on the premise that lowering marginal tax rates increases economic activity and leads to a higher level of government revenue.” Commenting on Christie’s proposal you state: “I don’t know of a school of economics that has studied the effect of reducing government spending while keeping taxes stable. I don’t know if it has ever been done.”
The lack of such a study arises from the fact that politicians are reluctant to cut services; thus, there is a dearth of empirical data. However, neither the Keynesian (also discussed in your May 13 commentary) nor the Laffer/Kemp/Reagan (also known as “supply side”) theories dependably produce the desired result of increasing tax revenues sufficient to offset the public debt created by either the increased spending or the tax cuts. I will leave a discussion of the merits of Keynesian theory to our Democratic colleagues. President Obama is providing them an excess of data to throw into their models.
“Supply side” economics promises prosperity, sound fiscal policies, and low taxes. It is a nice idea, but it is far from a certainty. It is more of a hope based on faith and optimism. Even a conservative icon such as economist Thomas Sowell does not support the claim that tax cuts will always generate more tax revenues by stimulating the economy than are lost by the cuts.(1)Ultimately that is an empirical question whose answer will be discovered after the fact.”(2)
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned President George W. Bush that, “‘Economic growth cannot be safely counted upon to eliminate deficits and the difficult choices that will be required to restore fiscal discipline.’ … I was trying to get people to see the need for fiscal restraint, encompassing not just taxes but more important, spending”(3)
In simple terms a tax cut without an equivalent spending cut is a gamble with the public trust. At the Federal level that gamble resulted in a huge federal budget deficit—which President Obama is increasing by a multiplier—and a reduction in the American sense of economic security. If not corrected it will “produce hyperinflation and economic devastation. So deficits must matter.”(4)
When President Kennedy proposed a tax cut in 1963 the top income tax rate had risen to 91 percent. The estate tax, the “death tax,” had risen to 77 percent. Personal income derived from capital gains and dividends was taxed away by the government to pay off the debts incurred during World War II and the Korean War and to finance the cost of the Cold War with the Soviet Union and Communist China.(5)These tax cuts redirected capital into the private economy resulting in the economic growth of the 1960’s. The economy only began to deteriorate again when the administration of President Johnson attempted simultaneously to finance both the Vietnam War and the social programs of the Great Society.(6)
When President Reagan cut taxes during the 1980’s the government was still taking 49% to 70% of the paychecks of successful people. That is double today’s rates. The tax cuts were intended to reduce the burden on people and to stimulate the economy. The tax cuts did both, but the additional revenue generated by the tax cuts never reduced the deficit.(7)These tax cuts were also followed by a large increase in defense spending as the Cold War limped to its conclusion. The result was an increase in the federal debt and a reduction in aid to the States.
The Bush tax cuts were a blip on the screen of the economy. They reduced the top marginal rates by less than five percent. Such small reductions released only limited additional capital into the private sector. Their positive effect soon vanished. Two wars and increased domestic spending by Republicans ended that moment in the fiscal sun. Their long term effect was to further increase the federal debt.(8)
Unlike the Federal government the State cannot print money or incur long term operating deficits. When there is a revenue shortfall the only alternatives are to cut spending or raise taxes. Obviously we have had enough of the latter.
Both Sowell and Greenspan agree that stimulating economic growth through tax cuts is an uncertain avenue to increasing tax revenues. The answers to the questions posed at the end of your commentary of May 13 do not lie with the experts, whether they be “smarter than [you],” or me, or not. I think Sowell and Greenspan would agree that the answers lie only at the conclusion, i.e., “an empirical question whose answer will be discovered after the fact.”
Christie’s proposal to cut spending before reducing taxes is simply a statement of financial common sense. It also indicates a willingness to make the “difficult choices… required to restore fiscal discipline,” as Greenspan advised Bush. If one is expecting a reduction in income—like when planning for retirement—it is only prudent to reduce spending first. Once upon a time this pragmatic approach produced the good management and sound fiscal policies associated with the Republican Party.
Economics is often called the “dismal science,” but it is not a science. It is a social study which obscures its uncertainties in a barrage of numbers and graphs. Republicans must remove the blinders imposed by unquestioning adherence to supply side economics. Experience, prudence and caution must be our guide, not speculative economic hypotheses. That is true economic conservatism.
Bob McLeod is a former municipal court judge and was the GOP Congressional candidate in New Jersey's 6th district in 2008. He is the first MMM contributor to submit a column with footnotes.
1) Basic Economics, A Common Sense Guide to the Economy, Thomas Sowell, Third Edition, Basic Books (New York, 2007), p. 398;
2)Basic Economics, A Common Sense Guide to the Economy, supra, p. 407.
3)The Age of Turbulence, Alan Greenspan, Penguin Group (New York, 2007), p. 24.
4)The Age of Turbulence, supra,, p. 237.
5)The Conscience of a Liberal, Paul Krugman, W.W. Norton & Company (New York, 2007), pp. 47-48.
6)The Age of Turbulence, supra,, pp. 54-55
7) "WHAT’S NEXT,” Janice Revell, Money, March, 2008, p. 88.
8)The Age of Turbulence, supra, pp. 237-241; “Tax Cuts Don’t Boost Revenue,” Justin Fox, TIME, December 17, 2007, p. 62.
In a commentary entitled Christie: “I’ll Cut Spending Before Reducing Taxes,” posted on MMM, May 13, 2009, you noted that “Pro-growth Laffer/Kemp /Reagan economic theory is based on the premise that lowering marginal tax rates increases economic activity and leads to a higher level of government revenue.” Commenting on Christie’s proposal you state: “I don’t know of a school of economics that has studied the effect of reducing government spending while keeping taxes stable. I don’t know if it has ever been done.”
The lack of such a study arises from the fact that politicians are reluctant to cut services; thus, there is a dearth of empirical data. However, neither the Keynesian (also discussed in your May 13 commentary) nor the Laffer/Kemp/Reagan (also known as “supply side”) theories dependably produce the desired result of increasing tax revenues sufficient to offset the public debt created by either the increased spending or the tax cuts. I will leave a discussion of the merits of Keynesian theory to our Democratic colleagues. President Obama is providing them an excess of data to throw into their models.
“Supply side” economics promises prosperity, sound fiscal policies, and low taxes. It is a nice idea, but it is far from a certainty. It is more of a hope based on faith and optimism. Even a conservative icon such as economist Thomas Sowell does not support the claim that tax cuts will always generate more tax revenues by stimulating the economy than are lost by the cuts.(1)Ultimately that is an empirical question whose answer will be discovered after the fact.”(2)
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned President George W. Bush that, “‘Economic growth cannot be safely counted upon to eliminate deficits and the difficult choices that will be required to restore fiscal discipline.’ … I was trying to get people to see the need for fiscal restraint, encompassing not just taxes but more important, spending”(3)
In simple terms a tax cut without an equivalent spending cut is a gamble with the public trust. At the Federal level that gamble resulted in a huge federal budget deficit—which President Obama is increasing by a multiplier—and a reduction in the American sense of economic security. If not corrected it will “produce hyperinflation and economic devastation. So deficits must matter.”(4)
When President Kennedy proposed a tax cut in 1963 the top income tax rate had risen to 91 percent. The estate tax, the “death tax,” had risen to 77 percent. Personal income derived from capital gains and dividends was taxed away by the government to pay off the debts incurred during World War II and the Korean War and to finance the cost of the Cold War with the Soviet Union and Communist China.(5)These tax cuts redirected capital into the private economy resulting in the economic growth of the 1960’s. The economy only began to deteriorate again when the administration of President Johnson attempted simultaneously to finance both the Vietnam War and the social programs of the Great Society.(6)
When President Reagan cut taxes during the 1980’s the government was still taking 49% to 70% of the paychecks of successful people. That is double today’s rates. The tax cuts were intended to reduce the burden on people and to stimulate the economy. The tax cuts did both, but the additional revenue generated by the tax cuts never reduced the deficit.(7)These tax cuts were also followed by a large increase in defense spending as the Cold War limped to its conclusion. The result was an increase in the federal debt and a reduction in aid to the States.
The Bush tax cuts were a blip on the screen of the economy. They reduced the top marginal rates by less than five percent. Such small reductions released only limited additional capital into the private sector. Their positive effect soon vanished. Two wars and increased domestic spending by Republicans ended that moment in the fiscal sun. Their long term effect was to further increase the federal debt.(8)
Unlike the Federal government the State cannot print money or incur long term operating deficits. When there is a revenue shortfall the only alternatives are to cut spending or raise taxes. Obviously we have had enough of the latter.
Both Sowell and Greenspan agree that stimulating economic growth through tax cuts is an uncertain avenue to increasing tax revenues. The answers to the questions posed at the end of your commentary of May 13 do not lie with the experts, whether they be “smarter than [you],” or me, or not. I think Sowell and Greenspan would agree that the answers lie only at the conclusion, i.e., “an empirical question whose answer will be discovered after the fact.”
Christie’s proposal to cut spending before reducing taxes is simply a statement of financial common sense. It also indicates a willingness to make the “difficult choices… required to restore fiscal discipline,” as Greenspan advised Bush. If one is expecting a reduction in income—like when planning for retirement—it is only prudent to reduce spending first. Once upon a time this pragmatic approach produced the good management and sound fiscal policies associated with the Republican Party.
Economics is often called the “dismal science,” but it is not a science. It is a social study which obscures its uncertainties in a barrage of numbers and graphs. Republicans must remove the blinders imposed by unquestioning adherence to supply side economics. Experience, prudence and caution must be our guide, not speculative economic hypotheses. That is true economic conservatism.
Bob McLeod is a former municipal court judge and was the GOP Congressional candidate in New Jersey's 6th district in 2008. He is the first MMM contributor to submit a column with footnotes.
1) Basic Economics, A Common Sense Guide to the Economy, Thomas Sowell, Third Edition, Basic Books (New York, 2007), p. 398;
2)Basic Economics, A Common Sense Guide to the Economy, supra, p. 407.
3)The Age of Turbulence, Alan Greenspan, Penguin Group (New York, 2007), p. 24.
4)The Age of Turbulence, supra,, p. 237.
5)The Conscience of a Liberal, Paul Krugman, W.W. Norton & Company (New York, 2007), pp. 47-48.
6)The Age of Turbulence, supra,, pp. 54-55
7) "WHAT’S NEXT,” Janice Revell, Money, March, 2008, p. 88.
8)The Age of Turbulence, supra, pp. 237-241; “Tax Cuts Don’t Boost Revenue,” Justin Fox, TIME, December 17, 2007, p. 62.
Friday, May 22, 2009
BECK, O’SCANLON AND CASAGRANDE: “NWS EARLE DECISION IS WRONG ON ALL COUNTS”
The 12th District Legislators would like to voice their disappointment in and opposition to the decision of the Department of the Navy for its decision to permit the plan for the privatization of 300 housing-units on U.S. Naval Weapon Station Earle to continue unimpeded.
“This is a contract that the Navy never should have entered,” said Senator Jennifer Beck. “This is a high security facility and allowing unfettered access to non-military personnel is a big mistake.”
The access to the housing development, known as Laurelwood Housing, would follow Alternative Alignment 4, as outlined in the Navy’s Environmental Impact Study, which was released late last year.
“How civilians will access Earle is far less troubling than the fact that the Navy is not at all concerned about the security risks of allowing unimpeded access for civilians on to a Naval Weapon Station,” said Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande. “It is truly disturbing how cavalier the navy has been on this issue, and how wrong it is that the Navy has so far refused to even discuss a buy-out with the developer, despite statements that she may be open to one. Now, instead of a one time buy-out, the navy will be expending money to construct a new access road, as well as additional on-going, round-the-clock security.”
According to the decision, because there was no “buy-out” provision in the Navy’s agreement with the developer it was not an acceptable alternative. However, Casagrande said that the Navy has refused to dialogue with the developer, despite clear communication from her that she would be open to the possibility of a buy-out.
Currently, a small percentage of the housing units at the complex are utilized by military families whose children receive educational services through the Tinton Falls School District. In 2010, the U.S. Navy plans to open 300 vacant apartments to civilian tenants which could result in an influx of potentially 500 students. The recent decision by the Department of the Navy states that Tinton Falls will also be responsible to educate the new civilian children that Laurelwood will bring to the base, without the federal assistance it enjoys from the military children currently enrolled in its district.
“It is an outrage how inattentive the Navy has been to the concerns of the people who will have to live in the towns that will bear the burden of heightened security concerns, as well as an increased burden on both infrastructure and schools,” said Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon. “Neither Tinton Falls nor Colts Neck has the capacity to take an additional 500 students into their schools, with or without payment from the federal government.”
“The decision that came down today claims that the security wouldn’t be impacted,” said Beck, “but it also claims that the schools will not be negatively impacted, and they’ve been wrong about those numbers every step of the way.”
The Environmental Impact Study contained several assertions which are highly questionable; for example they estimate that the 300 housing units on the base will only produce 145 school age children, when an adjacent housing complex with only 73 housing units has 92 school age children.
“This is a contract that the Navy never should have entered,” said Senator Jennifer Beck. “This is a high security facility and allowing unfettered access to non-military personnel is a big mistake.”
The access to the housing development, known as Laurelwood Housing, would follow Alternative Alignment 4, as outlined in the Navy’s Environmental Impact Study, which was released late last year.
“How civilians will access Earle is far less troubling than the fact that the Navy is not at all concerned about the security risks of allowing unimpeded access for civilians on to a Naval Weapon Station,” said Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande. “It is truly disturbing how cavalier the navy has been on this issue, and how wrong it is that the Navy has so far refused to even discuss a buy-out with the developer, despite statements that she may be open to one. Now, instead of a one time buy-out, the navy will be expending money to construct a new access road, as well as additional on-going, round-the-clock security.”
According to the decision, because there was no “buy-out” provision in the Navy’s agreement with the developer it was not an acceptable alternative. However, Casagrande said that the Navy has refused to dialogue with the developer, despite clear communication from her that she would be open to the possibility of a buy-out.
Currently, a small percentage of the housing units at the complex are utilized by military families whose children receive educational services through the Tinton Falls School District. In 2010, the U.S. Navy plans to open 300 vacant apartments to civilian tenants which could result in an influx of potentially 500 students. The recent decision by the Department of the Navy states that Tinton Falls will also be responsible to educate the new civilian children that Laurelwood will bring to the base, without the federal assistance it enjoys from the military children currently enrolled in its district.
“It is an outrage how inattentive the Navy has been to the concerns of the people who will have to live in the towns that will bear the burden of heightened security concerns, as well as an increased burden on both infrastructure and schools,” said Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon. “Neither Tinton Falls nor Colts Neck has the capacity to take an additional 500 students into their schools, with or without payment from the federal government.”
“The decision that came down today claims that the security wouldn’t be impacted,” said Beck, “but it also claims that the schools will not be negatively impacted, and they’ve been wrong about those numbers every step of the way.”
The Environmental Impact Study contained several assertions which are highly questionable; for example they estimate that the 300 housing units on the base will only produce 145 school age children, when an adjacent housing complex with only 73 housing units has 92 school age children.
Bret Schundler: Why I Endorsed Christie Over Lonegan
A number of people have asked me why I endorsed Chris Christie over Steve Lonegan in the election for Governor.
Part of the answer is that Chris is more successfully advancing issues that are important to me.
Both Chris Christie and Steve Lonegan are pro-life, pro-school choice, pro-reduced state spending, and pro-lower taxes -- but Chris Christie is more successfully winning support for these issues.
I don't want New Jersey to remain a state where outright infanticide, in the form of partial birth abortion, remains legal.
I don't want our state to be a place where children are cheated out of an education by politicians who throw money at failing schools when what the schools need is the increased accountability for performance that only school vouchers and/or tuition tax credits can bring.
I don't want New Jersey to remain a state where ever more residents and business owners want to leave. State spending and tax rates need to be CUT to make New Jersey a place people can afford to stay.
I have other far more serious reasons for not supporting Steve Lonegan, but for the sake of party unity, I would rather speak about why I support one candidate than why I oppose another. So just looking at the positive standard of who is being more effective building support for the conservative changes New Jersey needs, I think it's clear that the answer is Chris Christie. It's why Chris is so far ahead of Corzine in the polls, while Lonegan, as unpopular as Corzine is, still looks vulnerable.
This is NOT 2001. BOTH Chris Christie and Steve Lonegan are conservatives, but Chris is doing a better job building support for conservative policies, and that's a big reason I'm supporting him.
BRET SCHUNDLER
Part of the answer is that Chris is more successfully advancing issues that are important to me.
Both Chris Christie and Steve Lonegan are pro-life, pro-school choice, pro-reduced state spending, and pro-lower taxes -- but Chris Christie is more successfully winning support for these issues.
I don't want New Jersey to remain a state where outright infanticide, in the form of partial birth abortion, remains legal.
I don't want our state to be a place where children are cheated out of an education by politicians who throw money at failing schools when what the schools need is the increased accountability for performance that only school vouchers and/or tuition tax credits can bring.
I don't want New Jersey to remain a state where ever more residents and business owners want to leave. State spending and tax rates need to be CUT to make New Jersey a place people can afford to stay.
I have other far more serious reasons for not supporting Steve Lonegan, but for the sake of party unity, I would rather speak about why I support one candidate than why I oppose another. So just looking at the positive standard of who is being more effective building support for the conservative changes New Jersey needs, I think it's clear that the answer is Chris Christie. It's why Chris is so far ahead of Corzine in the polls, while Lonegan, as unpopular as Corzine is, still looks vulnerable.
This is NOT 2001. BOTH Chris Christie and Steve Lonegan are conservatives, but Chris is doing a better job building support for conservative policies, and that's a big reason I'm supporting him.
BRET SCHUNDLER
Corzine's Failures
Corzine's Failures is a new MMM feature.
Every Friday, starting today, we will list Jon Corzine's failures. Everyone is welcome to add to the list. Each Friday I'll publish the cumulative list and we'll keep adding to it.
We'll do this every Friday until November 6, when we will list the final entry:
He failed to get re-elected!
Here's the beginning of the list:
Corzine failed to sell our highways and increase tolls 800%
Corzine failed to reduce property taxes "40 in 4."
Corzine failed to ban the bikini wax.
Please add your entries in the comments.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Dem's Attack Ads Against Christie
From Politckernj:
Here's the ad:
WTF is Harry Reid doing screwing with the NJ GOP primary?
Here's another gem from Reid:
Call Harry Reid, 202-224-3542, and tell him he's an idiot. Tell him that just because New Jersey gave idiots the right to vote, doesn't mean we want him meddling in our primaries.
The Mid-Atlantic Leadership Fund, a Washington-based organization with ties to Democrats, has purchased about $900,000 worth of New York and Philadelphia TV ads attacking GOP gubernatorial candidate Christopher Christie. According to filings with the Internal Revenue Service, the political organization, which will not need to disclose their donors until July, is run by Sean Sinclair, a Democratic strategist who ran Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s 2004 re-election campaign.
Here's the ad:
WTF is Harry Reid doing screwing with the NJ GOP primary?
Here's another gem from Reid:
Call Harry Reid, 202-224-3542, and tell him he's an idiot. Tell him that just because New Jersey gave idiots the right to vote, doesn't mean we want him meddling in our primaries.
Christie's Answer
The Christie campaign released the above ad today which will run on New York and Philadelphia broadcast TV stations during the final days of the NJ primary campaign.
The ad is a response to the $900 thousand ad campaign by Washington, DC Democrats, The Mid-Atlantic Leadership Fund, which will also run during the final days of the campaign in an attempt to influence defeat Chris Christie and give Jon Corzine an easier opponent to run against in the general election.
"Clearly this is an effort to influence the Republican Primary. Jon Corzine may have bought the Democrat Party, but he will not buy the Republican Party,” is how Christie Campaign Consultant Mike DuHaime characterised the Democrats' ads.
The Freedom Defense Fund, a D.C. based group with ties to Lonegan, also announced that they would be running anti-Christie ads in the final days of the campaign. The FDF said their ads are scheduled to run over 1000 times during the last 10 days of the NJ primary campaign.
DuHaime said, "There is a peculiar alliance between Corzine, the Democrats, and Lonegan."
Christie Campaign chairman, Senator Joe Kyrillos, said that the negative ads would drive people to vote for Christie.
Apparently Camden Democrats Didn't Get The Memo...
....that Jon Corzine wants to run against Steve Lonegan and not Chris Christie.
State Senator Dana Redd, who is running for Mayor of Camden, made headlines this morning by taking exception to Steve Lonegan's call to bulldoze boarded up neighborhoods in Camden and other NJ cities to make them "parks and forests."
Forests in Camden. That's not quite the Hail Mary I expected from the Lonegan campaign.
Lonegan told the Courier-Post editorial board:
Redd seizing this quote and making hay of it doesn't help Lonegan. She must have missed the memo that Corzine wants to boost Lonegan's chances in the last week of the GOP primary.
What happened to Lonegan's committment to home rule with Mayors and Council determining the destinies of their communities? How is Lonegan going to turn urban decay into parks and forests without a government program?
Redd gave the Christie campaign and the GOP another gift. According to the Courier-Post, She challenged Lonegan and other Republican contenders for governor to come up with viable solutions to the problems faced by Camden and other urban areas.
The GOP should take her up on that. Obviously Democratic "solutions" for urban areas have not worked. Conservative solutions to urban problems will work. Politically, the GOP should go after the Dems strong holds in Camden, Essex and Hudson. We can't fix New Jersey's economy if we keep wasting billions of dollars in our cities, and if we run against the wasteful spending in cities without offering workable solutions, everyone continues to lose.
State Senator Dana Redd, who is running for Mayor of Camden, made headlines this morning by taking exception to Steve Lonegan's call to bulldoze boarded up neighborhoods in Camden and other NJ cities to make them "parks and forests."
Forests in Camden. That's not quite the Hail Mary I expected from the Lonegan campaign.
Lonegan told the Courier-Post editorial board:
"Job growth and business growth are critical, but also to some extent downsizing the city is, too," Lonegan told the Courier-Post editorial board on Tuesday. "You have neighborhoods in Camden I've visited that are boarded-up. They should be leveled. Why not make them into parks or forests?"
Redd seizing this quote and making hay of it doesn't help Lonegan. She must have missed the memo that Corzine wants to boost Lonegan's chances in the last week of the GOP primary.
What happened to Lonegan's committment to home rule with Mayors and Council determining the destinies of their communities? How is Lonegan going to turn urban decay into parks and forests without a government program?
Redd gave the Christie campaign and the GOP another gift. According to the Courier-Post, She challenged Lonegan and other Republican contenders for governor to come up with viable solutions to the problems faced by Camden and other urban areas.
The GOP should take her up on that. Obviously Democratic "solutions" for urban areas have not worked. Conservative solutions to urban problems will work. Politically, the GOP should go after the Dems strong holds in Camden, Essex and Hudson. We can't fix New Jersey's economy if we keep wasting billions of dollars in our cities, and if we run against the wasteful spending in cities without offering workable solutions, everyone continues to lose.
The Fat Lady Is Warming Up
The poll numbers released yesterday by Quinnipiac and Monmouth University/Gannett indicate that the miserable soap opera of a primary campaign is mercifully coming to an end.
Steve Lonegan's best hope to gain the GOP gubernatorial nomination is to pray for a blizzard on June 2 that keeps all but his most passionate supporters from the polls.
Christie's wide lead in the polls pretty much assures that a cavalry of cash will not come rushing to the Lonegan coffers for a last minute recovery. Even the Democrats million dollar attempt to derail the Christie nomination will be too little to late.
With a holiday weekend upon us, voters will be focused on honoring those who gave their lives for our freedom, parades, bar-b-que's and family, until Tuesday. There is effectively only a week left in the campaign.
The Christie campaign needs to turn out the vote. The Lonegan campaign needs a miracle.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
STATEMENT BY CHRIS CHRISTIE ON NEW JERSEY'S LATEST UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES
PARSIPPANY, NJ - Chris Christie released the following statement regarding New Jersey's latest unemployment figures released today:
"For the 15th consecutive month, New Jersey's unemployment rate has risen while Jon Corzine has done nothing but raise taxes on hardworking families buckling under the financial strain. Since Governor Corzine has been in office, it has been one bad decision after another, and New Jerseyans are paying the consequences. It's time for a governor who will put a stop to high taxes, turn around our anti-competitive climate to keep jobs here and enact responsible budgeting so funding for priority programs like property tax relief and education doesn't disappear."
"For the 15th consecutive month, New Jersey's unemployment rate has risen while Jon Corzine has done nothing but raise taxes on hardworking families buckling under the financial strain. Since Governor Corzine has been in office, it has been one bad decision after another, and New Jerseyans are paying the consequences. It's time for a governor who will put a stop to high taxes, turn around our anti-competitive climate to keep jobs here and enact responsible budgeting so funding for priority programs like property tax relief and education doesn't disappear."
A Message From The Republican State Committee
Absolutely unbelievable! Yesterday, Governor Corzine’s administration dropped another bomb on New Jersey taxpayers. He now plans to eliminate rebates after promising to increase them.
Corzine’s Treasurer David Rousseau, who just a few weeks ago said New Jerseyeans are not overtaxed, announced in the Assembly budget hearings the elimination of property tax rebates.
WATCH OUR LATEST WEBVIDEO:
This video highlights Corzine’s broken promise to grow rebates 40% over four years, which was the centerpiece of his campaign in 2005. Not only did he promise to grow rebates he promised hardwire them into the state budget and fit our budgets to make it happen.
The fiscal disaster we're facing falls squarely at the feet of Corzine and the Democrats. The choices they made to ignore the billions of dollars in cuts offered by Republicans are the reason we are where we are. Instead of cutting taxes, Corzine raised them. Instead of cutting spending, Corzine increased the budget. Instead of lowering state debt, Corzine borrowed more.
Help us get this video out there by forwarding it NOW to your family and friends. It is time for New Jersey taxpayers to follow the lead of Corzine's former partners at Goldman Sachs and tell Jon Corzine: “Your fired."
REPUBLICAN BUDGET MEMBERS: CORZINE NEEDS TO ACKNOWLEDGE FAILINGS IF PROBLEMS ARE TO BE FIXED
Republican members of the senate Budget Committee released the following statement following budget meetings Thursday:
Governor Corzine bristles when anyone points out failed policies that have worsened today's budget mess and reflexively labels them as "partisan." However, unless he acknowledges failed policies, he will never be able to correct them and things won't get much better for people in New Jersey.
Here are some of the failed policies that have made our situation worse.
Since 2002, more than 100 taxes have been increased on job-creating businesses, helping to drive them away.
Since 2002, burdens like Paid Family Leave and COAH obligations imposed on job-creating businesses have made us less competitive than our neighbors.
There is objective data to show what the past several years of these policies have wrought. Our unemployment rate, once lower than every surrounding state, is now higher. Our decreasing standing amongst our neighbors can not be attributed to a global problem.
Other changes that have put our State in a worse predicament than our neighbors relate to our preparedness to deal with economic downturn. Eight years ago, the Unemployment Insurance Fund had a $3 billion surplus, the State's budget had a $1 billion planned surplus against a $22 billion spending plan, the Transportation Trust Fund had life left in it, and the Open Space Fund was flush with cash. Debt, which was already too high, stood at $16 billion.
Today, the State's planned surplus has been reduced significantly to unhealthy levels even as State spending increased by 50%. The transportation and open space Funds are teetering on insolvency after increased spending and debt gimmicks pushed them to this point. The State's debt load more than doubled to almost $40 billion as borrowing programs expanded and debt payments were delayed through irresponsible restructurings that pushed debt payments out 20 years.
Ironically, surrounding states like Massachusetts and Connecticut have been building surpluses, not shrinking them. Surrounding states have refrained from hiking taxes 100 times or forcing the types of regulations on businesses like New Jersey.
Aside from embracing policies that caused New Jersey to be ill-prepared for a the current global problem, Governor Corzine has been slow to act. Despite early indications in October and November that our current budget was headed for a deficit, he continued to sign spending bills and gave out discretionary money under mismanaged programs like Special Municipal Aid. He continued to refuse to kick part time workers out of the pension system or to make other spending cuts that had been proposed by Republicans for years. In fact, he refused to identify any spending cuts until he was sued.
The hard truth is that Governor Corzine's policies have made our situation worse. Until he starts acknowledging policies that have made our situation worse instead of reflexively shouting "partisan" at anyone who points them out, he will continue to be unable to fix what is obviously broken.
Governor Corzine bristles when anyone points out failed policies that have worsened today's budget mess and reflexively labels them as "partisan." However, unless he acknowledges failed policies, he will never be able to correct them and things won't get much better for people in New Jersey.
Here are some of the failed policies that have made our situation worse.
Since 2002, more than 100 taxes have been increased on job-creating businesses, helping to drive them away.
Since 2002, burdens like Paid Family Leave and COAH obligations imposed on job-creating businesses have made us less competitive than our neighbors.
There is objective data to show what the past several years of these policies have wrought. Our unemployment rate, once lower than every surrounding state, is now higher. Our decreasing standing amongst our neighbors can not be attributed to a global problem.
Other changes that have put our State in a worse predicament than our neighbors relate to our preparedness to deal with economic downturn. Eight years ago, the Unemployment Insurance Fund had a $3 billion surplus, the State's budget had a $1 billion planned surplus against a $22 billion spending plan, the Transportation Trust Fund had life left in it, and the Open Space Fund was flush with cash. Debt, which was already too high, stood at $16 billion.
Today, the State's planned surplus has been reduced significantly to unhealthy levels even as State spending increased by 50%. The transportation and open space Funds are teetering on insolvency after increased spending and debt gimmicks pushed them to this point. The State's debt load more than doubled to almost $40 billion as borrowing programs expanded and debt payments were delayed through irresponsible restructurings that pushed debt payments out 20 years.
Ironically, surrounding states like Massachusetts and Connecticut have been building surpluses, not shrinking them. Surrounding states have refrained from hiking taxes 100 times or forcing the types of regulations on businesses like New Jersey.
Aside from embracing policies that caused New Jersey to be ill-prepared for a the current global problem, Governor Corzine has been slow to act. Despite early indications in October and November that our current budget was headed for a deficit, he continued to sign spending bills and gave out discretionary money under mismanaged programs like Special Municipal Aid. He continued to refuse to kick part time workers out of the pension system or to make other spending cuts that had been proposed by Republicans for years. In fact, he refused to identify any spending cuts until he was sued.
The hard truth is that Governor Corzine's policies have made our situation worse. Until he starts acknowledging policies that have made our situation worse instead of reflexively shouting "partisan" at anyone who points them out, he will continue to be unable to fix what is obviously broken.
Polls: Christie Widens Lead Dramatically
Two polls published this morning indicate that Chris Christie has restored his double digit lead over Steve Lonegan in the GOP primary for Governor.
The Quinnipiac Polling Institute gives Christie a 23 point lead. The Monmouth University/Gannet poll us Christie up by 18.
The Quinnipiac Polling Institute gives Christie a 23 point lead. The Monmouth University/Gannet poll us Christie up by 18.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Sabrin Blasts Lonegan
Murray Sabrin, the Ramapo College Professor who has run for NJ Governor as a Libertarian and for the the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate, wrote a scathing personal Op/Ed piece about Steve Lonegan for Politickernj.
Among Murray's gems about Lonegan:
I don't see Sabrin's endorsement of Christie making the difference in the race, far from it. However, having a scorned ally like Sabrin stepping up to blast Lonegan in the final weeks of the campaign does will not help the former Bogota Mayor.
Among Murray's gems about Lonegan:
"Steve Lonegan is a Steve Lonegan Republican. Steve will do what he believes is in his political interests to advance his political career. "
"A further analysis of Lonegan's 2.9% flat tax plan reveals that it will raise taxes on approximately 90% of New Jerseyans."
"As Noah Webster said: "In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate--look to his character...."
Steve Lonegan has shown little character in the past year, and as my late father would say, "He is not a mensch." "
I don't see Sabrin's endorsement of Christie making the difference in the race, far from it. However, having a scorned ally like Sabrin stepping up to blast Lonegan in the final weeks of the campaign does will not help the former Bogota Mayor.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Round II: Edge Christie, Barely
Steve Lonegan outperformed Chris Christie for much of the second televised debate of the gubernatorial campaign, which was broadcast today. If the nomination hinged solely on this debate performance, Lonegan would be the nominee.
However, the nomination hinges on what happens over the next two weeks.
Lonegan fell into a Christie trap which the former U.S. Attorney will use relentlessly to raise doubts about Lonegan on the stump, in mailers, and in radio and TV ads.
Lonegan said, in his answer to Christie's question, that he would allow terrorists presently detained at Gitmo to be jailed in New Jersey, should President Obama close the terrorist detention center in Cuba. The former Bogota Mayor almost avoided the trap in his initial answer, but took the bait, hook, line and sinker, when Christie pressed for a yes or no on follow up. Watch Christie's reaction closely to Lonegan's answer. He put the answer in his pocket as if it was what he came for.
Except for that one gaffe, Lonegan performed much better than he did in the NJN debate last Tuesday. He staid on message and used every opportunity he could to contrast his message to Christie's. Not once did he say he agreed with Christie, as he said several times in the previous debate, after declaring that he would use that debate to make a clear case that he was the best candidate.
Lonegan scored some points in defending his flat tax plan, which has become the focal point of both campaigns. By revealing that "the independent analysis" that said the flat tax would raise taxes on 70% was written by the same former State Treasurer, Peter Laurence, who advocated the ill advised 9% state pension increase given to state workers the last time Republicans controlled Trenton, Lonegan painted Christie as a member of the Whitman/DiFrancesco establishment. Christie contributed to this impression by referring to the analysis as "ours" where he has previously referred to it as "independent."
If the rest of the campaign is like the last couple of weeks, a debate about Lonegan's flat tax plan, Lonegan could gain ground as he explains it and raises doubts about Christie for his lack of specifics about his tax plan. However, Lonegan assured that he will be fighting at least a two front war over the last weeks of the campaign when he gave Christie the terrorist detention issue to hammer him with.
For Christie's part, with a lead in the polls and more money in the bank, he appeared to be running out the clock for much of this debate. He was less animated than he was on Tuesday and didn't "hit any out of the park." His self-depreciating joke, that he went to law school because he was not good at math or science, will be the subject of some Lonegan material, but it was not nearly the gaffe that Lonegan's terrorist answer was.
However, the nomination hinges on what happens over the next two weeks.
Lonegan fell into a Christie trap which the former U.S. Attorney will use relentlessly to raise doubts about Lonegan on the stump, in mailers, and in radio and TV ads.
Lonegan said, in his answer to Christie's question, that he would allow terrorists presently detained at Gitmo to be jailed in New Jersey, should President Obama close the terrorist detention center in Cuba. The former Bogota Mayor almost avoided the trap in his initial answer, but took the bait, hook, line and sinker, when Christie pressed for a yes or no on follow up. Watch Christie's reaction closely to Lonegan's answer. He put the answer in his pocket as if it was what he came for.
Except for that one gaffe, Lonegan performed much better than he did in the NJN debate last Tuesday. He staid on message and used every opportunity he could to contrast his message to Christie's. Not once did he say he agreed with Christie, as he said several times in the previous debate, after declaring that he would use that debate to make a clear case that he was the best candidate.
Lonegan scored some points in defending his flat tax plan, which has become the focal point of both campaigns. By revealing that "the independent analysis" that said the flat tax would raise taxes on 70% was written by the same former State Treasurer, Peter Laurence, who advocated the ill advised 9% state pension increase given to state workers the last time Republicans controlled Trenton, Lonegan painted Christie as a member of the Whitman/DiFrancesco establishment. Christie contributed to this impression by referring to the analysis as "ours" where he has previously referred to it as "independent."
If the rest of the campaign is like the last couple of weeks, a debate about Lonegan's flat tax plan, Lonegan could gain ground as he explains it and raises doubts about Christie for his lack of specifics about his tax plan. However, Lonegan assured that he will be fighting at least a two front war over the last weeks of the campaign when he gave Christie the terrorist detention issue to hammer him with.
For Christie's part, with a lead in the polls and more money in the bank, he appeared to be running out the clock for much of this debate. He was less animated than he was on Tuesday and didn't "hit any out of the park." His self-depreciating joke, that he went to law school because he was not good at math or science, will be the subject of some Lonegan material, but it was not nearly the gaffe that Lonegan's terrorist answer was.
Tax Board Conflict Likely To Continue
Former Assemblyman Michael Panter will continue to present property tax appeals to the Monmouth County Tax Commission, which is presided over by his business partner Daniel Kelly.
The Asbury Park Press picked up the story of this obvious conflict, which was first raised here at MMM last week.
Wayne Pominowski, a Republican member of the Tax Commission boycotted the recent reorganization meeting of the board in protest on Kelly's anticipated elevation to president and Panter's advertising campaign looking for clients to represent before the board. Pominowski issued a statement which said in part,
In an apparent recognition of the conflict, Panter has removed the link on his law firm's website to the site of his partnership with Kelly.
Kelly told the Asbury Park Press that he would recuse himself from cases that Panter represents and that there is no reason for him to step down from the commission.
The question should not be, "is there a reason to step down?" Rather, is there a reason for Kelly to serve on the board? should be the question.
Kelly's bio indicates no expertise in real estate appraisals or property tax assessments. What was the criteria by which Governor Corzine appointed him, other than his relationship with Panter, who was a Democratic member of the state legislature at the time of the appointment.
For Kelly, the $22,000 he receives for serving as president of the commission, and the state pension that goes with it, are reason enough to serve. But are Monmouth County tax payers best served by the partner of a politician serving in such a capacity? Is there no one more qualified without such conflicts available to serve?
The Asbury Park Press picked up the story of this obvious conflict, which was first raised here at MMM last week.
Wayne Pominowski, a Republican member of the Tax Commission boycotted the recent reorganization meeting of the board in protest on Kelly's anticipated elevation to president and Panter's advertising campaign looking for clients to represent before the board. Pominowski issued a statement which said in part,
"In these times of widespread skepticism concerning the openness and fairness of government agencies . . . the board is doing itself a disservice by elevating to its presidency someone who does not see the conflict inherent in his own advertisements,"
In an apparent recognition of the conflict, Panter has removed the link on his law firm's website to the site of his partnership with Kelly.
Kelly told the Asbury Park Press that he would recuse himself from cases that Panter represents and that there is no reason for him to step down from the commission.
The question should not be, "is there a reason to step down?" Rather, is there a reason for Kelly to serve on the board? should be the question.
Kelly's bio indicates no expertise in real estate appraisals or property tax assessments. What was the criteria by which Governor Corzine appointed him, other than his relationship with Panter, who was a Democratic member of the state legislature at the time of the appointment.
For Kelly, the $22,000 he receives for serving as president of the commission, and the state pension that goes with it, are reason enough to serve. But are Monmouth County tax payers best served by the partner of a politician serving in such a capacity? Is there no one more qualified without such conflicts available to serve?
Debate II
Christie and Lonegan debated yesterday in a Trenton TV studio.
You can watch it this morning, 11am, on WABC-TV (Channel 7, NY) or this afternoon, 1PM on WPVI-TV (Channel 6, Phillie).
You can watch it this morning, 11am, on WABC-TV (Channel 7, NY) or this afternoon, 1PM on WPVI-TV (Channel 6, Phillie).
Friday, May 15, 2009
Legendary Economist Arthur Laffer Endorses Lonegan Flat Tax and Economic Agenda
Dr. Laffer calls the Lonegan Plan the best medicine for state economy
NASHVILLE – Former economic advisor to President Ronald Reagan and “Father of Supply-Side Economics” Dr. Arthur Laffer today endorsed the Steve Lonegan Flat Tax plan for New Jersey.
"Steve Lonegan's economic plan is the best medicine for New Jersey's ailing state economy," Dr. Laffer said. "The Lonegan Flat Tax would replace New Jersey's stifling progressive income tax and its top rate of 9 percent with a simple, flat tax of 2.9 percent that would unshackle entrepreneurship and capital formation and give New Jersey residents a huge incentive to work, save, and invest. His plans to cut spending and repeal business taxes would also help turn New Jersey from an economic laggard into a leader among the states."
"The Lonegan Flat Tax plan would unleash the animal spirits of New Jersey's most productive citizens and create a wave of economic growth that will leave all New Jersey citizens better off," Laffer said. "I'm an income tax refugee myself, so I know the Lonegan Flat Tax plan will reverse the drain of New Jersey's best wealth producers leaving the state and once again make New Jersey a magnet for jobs, growth, and prosperity "
Steve Lonegan welcomed the endorsement, saying: "Dr. Laffer's support proves that the baseless attacks on my Flat Tax and overall economic plan are based on bad economics and bad politics. The first order of business for the next governor is to get the state's economy back on track and create a rising tide that will lift all boats. That's precisely what my plan will do and that's why I should be the next governor of New Jersey."
NASHVILLE – Former economic advisor to President Ronald Reagan and “Father of Supply-Side Economics” Dr. Arthur Laffer today endorsed the Steve Lonegan Flat Tax plan for New Jersey.
"Steve Lonegan's economic plan is the best medicine for New Jersey's ailing state economy," Dr. Laffer said. "The Lonegan Flat Tax would replace New Jersey's stifling progressive income tax and its top rate of 9 percent with a simple, flat tax of 2.9 percent that would unshackle entrepreneurship and capital formation and give New Jersey residents a huge incentive to work, save, and invest. His plans to cut spending and repeal business taxes would also help turn New Jersey from an economic laggard into a leader among the states."
"The Lonegan Flat Tax plan would unleash the animal spirits of New Jersey's most productive citizens and create a wave of economic growth that will leave all New Jersey citizens better off," Laffer said. "I'm an income tax refugee myself, so I know the Lonegan Flat Tax plan will reverse the drain of New Jersey's best wealth producers leaving the state and once again make New Jersey a magnet for jobs, growth, and prosperity "
Steve Lonegan welcomed the endorsement, saying: "Dr. Laffer's support proves that the baseless attacks on my Flat Tax and overall economic plan are based on bad economics and bad politics. The first order of business for the next governor is to get the state's economy back on track and create a rising tide that will lift all boats. That's precisely what my plan will do and that's why I should be the next governor of New Jersey."
Bucco: Corzine Kicks the Budget Problem Past Election Day
Senator Anthony Bucco, Republican budget officer, made the following observations after Governor Corzine released details today of $150 million in supposed cuts he’s planning to use to balance this year’s budget:
“Governor Corzine keeps sticking his fingers in the dike as new leaks in the state’s revenue stream develop daily,” Bucco said. “It’s clear now that he’s running out of fingers.
“Faced with a $1.2 billion budget problem, Governor Corzine has done what he has always done,” Bucco said. “Corzine has pushed billions of dollars of debt and pension expenses off to another day – a day when he hopes against all reason and evidence that the state’s economy will improve so dramatically, that the effects of his grossly irresponsible budget management will be erased by growing revenue.
“The governor claims that he announced $150 million of budget cuts today. That means he’s kicking at least another $1 billion plus of expenses down the road. Does anyone really believe that paying those expenses two or three years from now will be dramatically easier than it is today?
“The governor also began the process today of pushing hundreds of millions of dollars of debt payments off the budget and on to our children and grandchildren. This refinancing is being conducted quietly, with the lack of transparency to the public that has become the hallmark of his administration.”
“Governor Corzine keeps sticking his fingers in the dike as new leaks in the state’s revenue stream develop daily,” Bucco said. “It’s clear now that he’s running out of fingers.
“Faced with a $1.2 billion budget problem, Governor Corzine has done what he has always done,” Bucco said. “Corzine has pushed billions of dollars of debt and pension expenses off to another day – a day when he hopes against all reason and evidence that the state’s economy will improve so dramatically, that the effects of his grossly irresponsible budget management will be erased by growing revenue.
“The governor claims that he announced $150 million of budget cuts today. That means he’s kicking at least another $1 billion plus of expenses down the road. Does anyone really believe that paying those expenses two or three years from now will be dramatically easier than it is today?
“The governor also began the process today of pushing hundreds of millions of dollars of debt payments off the budget and on to our children and grandchildren. This refinancing is being conducted quietly, with the lack of transparency to the public that has become the hallmark of his administration.”
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Rasmussen:Corzine Trails Christie by 9%, Lonegan by 1%
But the Governor's numbers show a 6% improvement since March.
New Jersey polls often shows Republican candidates polling well in the spring and then shows Democrat gaining ground in the fall. A Republican has not won a statewide election in the Garden State since 1997. On a generic basis, 48% of New Jersey voters would like to see a Democrat as Governor while just 34% would prefer a Republican. That political gravity is almost certain to help the incumbent as Election Day draws near.
Buster Soaries for Lt. Governor
While Chris Christie and Steve Lonegan are racing to the finish line, their staffs should be vetting potential running mates. For the first time in history, New Jersey will elect a Lt. Governor this year. The gubernatorial nominees choose their running mates and the person that will step in as governor during absences from the state and should the elected governor leave office.
I'd like to throw a name into the mix that has not been previously mentioned.
Reverend DeForest B. Soaries, Jr.
Soaries is the Pastor of the First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens in Somerset.
He was the Secretary of State in the Whitman administration and Chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission in the Bush administration. He ran for Congress against Rush Holt in 2002.
He is a widely respected African American leader.
One could argue that even suggesting Soaries is a cynical play of the race card. That he's only being mentioned because he is black. That might be so. But Christie, Lonegan and even Corzine wouldn't be candidates if they weren't white.
Democratic solutions to urban problems have not worked. They are not designed to work, they are designed to keep the poor dependent on the government and to keep them voting Democratic. This is true nationally and in New Jersey.
The New Jersey Republican Party has an historic opportunity to tackle urban problems with Republican principles of individual responsiblity and freedom. Christie has already alluded to tackling these problems with his education plan. He's talking about the moral failure of not educating our children in Abbott districts.
Politically, the NJGOP has written off Essex, Hudson and Camdem counties. That is a moral failure on the part of our party. We should be proposing real, conservative solutions to urban problems. We should unapologetically propose to revitalize our cities and to empower the families that live and work there.
Nominating a man like Dr. DeForest Soaries, and taking his lead on these important issues would be a good first step, morally and politically.
I'd like to throw a name into the mix that has not been previously mentioned.
Reverend DeForest B. Soaries, Jr.
Soaries is the Pastor of the First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens in Somerset.
He was the Secretary of State in the Whitman administration and Chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission in the Bush administration. He ran for Congress against Rush Holt in 2002.
He is a widely respected African American leader.
One could argue that even suggesting Soaries is a cynical play of the race card. That he's only being mentioned because he is black. That might be so. But Christie, Lonegan and even Corzine wouldn't be candidates if they weren't white.
Democratic solutions to urban problems have not worked. They are not designed to work, they are designed to keep the poor dependent on the government and to keep them voting Democratic. This is true nationally and in New Jersey.
The New Jersey Republican Party has an historic opportunity to tackle urban problems with Republican principles of individual responsiblity and freedom. Christie has already alluded to tackling these problems with his education plan. He's talking about the moral failure of not educating our children in Abbott districts.
Politically, the NJGOP has written off Essex, Hudson and Camdem counties. That is a moral failure on the part of our party. We should be proposing real, conservative solutions to urban problems. We should unapologetically propose to revitalize our cities and to empower the families that live and work there.
Nominating a man like Dr. DeForest Soaries, and taking his lead on these important issues would be a good first step, morally and politically.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Christie: "I'll Cut Spending Before Reducing Taxes"
On a press teleconference this afternoon with Steve Forbes, Chris Christie confirmed that his plan is to reduce state spending before reducing taxes. The Lonegan campaign has an radio ad out today that makes an issue of that.
Forbes spent much of his time on the call distinguishing between the flat tax plan that he proposed in his 1996 presidential campaign to Steve Lonegan's current flat tax plan. Forbes said that his flat tax would have reduced taxes for most everybody, that his plan exempted the first $46,000 in income for a family of four. Lonegan's plan, he said, would increase taxes on the majority.
Forbes's role on the call was really that of a cheerleader for Christie and to debunk Lonegan's plan. However, I would have liked to have heard him speak on the advisability of keeping the Corzine/Codey/McGreevey tax rates stable, while reducing spending as a way to improve New Jersey's economy.
It has been a long time since I earned my degree in economics. I'm not an expert, but I know enough economics that Christie's plan is giving me a headache.
Pro-growth Laffer/Kemp/Reagan economic theory is based on the premise that lowering marginal tax rates increases economic activity and leads to a higher level of government revenue.
That proved to be the case in the Reagan years and during the early Bush 43 years. It was also the case in the JFK years.
Keynesians believe that government spending increases output, or aggregate demand, by a multiplier, i.e. a $10 billion dollar increase in government spending will cause total output to increase $15 billion dollars, if the multiplier is 1.5. For Keynesian economics to work the multiplier must be greater than zero.
I don't know of a school of economics that has studied the effect of reducing government spending while keeping taxes stable. I don't know if it has ever been done.
We live in New Jersey, so we know the effects of raising spending, raising borrowing and raising taxes. We've been living that for the last seven years. It is stifling. It drives people and businesses away.
What I like about Christie's plan is that it intentionally reduces the size of government. I think that is good for the soul and good for personal freedom.
As we know all to well, Republicans failed miserably in reducing spending when we last controlled Trenton, and Washington for that matter. In that context, Christie is truly promises to take us in a radical new direction.
But will it work without simultaneously reducing taxes? Will we be able to attract businesses back to NJ, as both Christie and Lonegan say their plans will do, if we wait to give them the incentives to come? Will businesses that have managed to stay here and survive start creating new jobs with the promise of tax relief to come?
I don't know. I would like to hear someone smarter than me talk about it.
Maybe it will be a topic in the next debate.
Forbes spent much of his time on the call distinguishing between the flat tax plan that he proposed in his 1996 presidential campaign to Steve Lonegan's current flat tax plan. Forbes said that his flat tax would have reduced taxes for most everybody, that his plan exempted the first $46,000 in income for a family of four. Lonegan's plan, he said, would increase taxes on the majority.
Forbes's role on the call was really that of a cheerleader for Christie and to debunk Lonegan's plan. However, I would have liked to have heard him speak on the advisability of keeping the Corzine/Codey/McGreevey tax rates stable, while reducing spending as a way to improve New Jersey's economy.
It has been a long time since I earned my degree in economics. I'm not an expert, but I know enough economics that Christie's plan is giving me a headache.
Pro-growth Laffer/Kemp/Reagan economic theory is based on the premise that lowering marginal tax rates increases economic activity and leads to a higher level of government revenue.
That proved to be the case in the Reagan years and during the early Bush 43 years. It was also the case in the JFK years.
Keynesians believe that government spending increases output, or aggregate demand, by a multiplier, i.e. a $10 billion dollar increase in government spending will cause total output to increase $15 billion dollars, if the multiplier is 1.5. For Keynesian economics to work the multiplier must be greater than zero.
I don't know of a school of economics that has studied the effect of reducing government spending while keeping taxes stable. I don't know if it has ever been done.
We live in New Jersey, so we know the effects of raising spending, raising borrowing and raising taxes. We've been living that for the last seven years. It is stifling. It drives people and businesses away.
What I like about Christie's plan is that it intentionally reduces the size of government. I think that is good for the soul and good for personal freedom.
As we know all to well, Republicans failed miserably in reducing spending when we last controlled Trenton, and Washington for that matter. In that context, Christie is truly promises to take us in a radical new direction.
But will it work without simultaneously reducing taxes? Will we be able to attract businesses back to NJ, as both Christie and Lonegan say their plans will do, if we wait to give them the incentives to come? Will businesses that have managed to stay here and survive start creating new jobs with the promise of tax relief to come?
I don't know. I would like to hear someone smarter than me talk about it.
Maybe it will be a topic in the next debate.
Rasmussen Reports: Christie Leads Lonegan 39%-29%. It Is Still A Race.
Rasmussen Reports released a poll this evening that indicates that Chris Christie is leading Steve Lonegan in the NJ GOP primary by 10 pts, with 29% still undecided.
Lonegan does better among men and conservatives. Christie does better among women and moderates.
In primary elections, turnout is often the key. Lonegan’s supporters are somewhat more committed to participating in the primary suggesting that a low turnout could favor his prospects.
Christie earns favorable reviews from 75% of Likely Primary Voters while Lonegan gets similar reviews from 71%. 26% have a Very Favorable opinion of Lonegan while 23% say the same of Christie.
Lonegan does better among men and conservatives. Christie does better among women and moderates.
In primary elections, turnout is often the key. Lonegan’s supporters are somewhat more committed to participating in the primary suggesting that a low turnout could favor his prospects.
Christie earns favorable reviews from 75% of Likely Primary Voters while Lonegan gets similar reviews from 71%. 26% have a Very Favorable opinion of Lonegan while 23% say the same of Christie.
Republican Governors Association To Run Anti-Corzine Ads, Starting Tomorrow
The Republican Governors Association is taking a special interest in the New Jersey's Governors race. Check out their website, JerseyPays.com
The RGA is rolling out the following TV and radio ads starting tomorrow:
TV Ad:
Download radio ad here.
I find it curious that the RGA is spending money bashing Corzine now, during the GOP primary. Assuming Corzine is on the ballot in November, we are going to need a ton of money in the fall. A senior level NJ GOP leader suggests that the ads may be part of a fund raising campaign, or a signal to the Democratic Governors Association that the ads DGA announced last week will not go unanswered.
The RGA is rolling out the following TV and radio ads starting tomorrow:
TV Ad:
Download radio ad here.
I find it curious that the RGA is spending money bashing Corzine now, during the GOP primary. Assuming Corzine is on the ballot in November, we are going to need a ton of money in the fall. A senior level NJ GOP leader suggests that the ads may be part of a fund raising campaign, or a signal to the Democratic Governors Association that the ads DGA announced last week will not go unanswered.
12TH DISTRICT LEGISLATORS PLEASED TO SEE FOUR-YEAR PLAN ROLLED-OUT TO RESOLVE POLLUTION AT BRANCHPORT CREEK
The 12th District Legislators are pleased to see progress in the resolution of the on-going pollution problem at Branchport Creek.
A meeting was held Monday night at Oceanport Borough Hall at which the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority discussed with the public its new plan to solve the run-off problem caused by Branchport Creek’s close proximity to Monmouth Park Racetrack. Senator Jennifer Beck, Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon and Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande were in attendance.
“For the past two years,” said O’Scanlon, who has been working towards a solution since the problem was first recognized, “I, along with Senator Beck and Assemblywoman Casagrande, have been working very hard to find a feasible solution to this pollution problem. We have been working with the residents and the Borough of Oceanport, the people at Monmouth Park and the Two Rivers Water Reclamation Authority to stop the pollution at Branchport Creek that has been making that water unsafe for the past several years. I am hopeful that we’ve finally found a solution.”
The agreement that has been reached, and that was presented at Monday night’s meeting, includes having Oceanport acting as a conduit to borrow up to $22 million for upgrades from the New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust, which will be repaid by the NJSEA on behalf of Oceanport Borough. The upgrades will entail a retention basin and pumping station, which will allow Monmouth Park to control the flow rate to the Two Rivers Water Reclamation Authority, and prevent run-off to Branchport Creek.
The four-year plan is expected to be complete by 2013, and although the residents are frustrated by this long process, steps have already begun to be taken. For instance, the flow of waste to the TRWRA has already been doubled for this racing season.
“Because of the planned retention basin and pumping station,” said Casagrande, “the former plan to hook up to the Long Branch Sewage Authority is no longer needed. Since the rate will be controlled, the LBSA doesn’t need to be involved. This has been a long road, with signs going up every year warning of the waste found in Branchport Creek. It will be a real success when we see those signs removed once and for all.”
“Racing is an important industry in New Jersey,” said Beck, “but not more important than the safety of our environment. We are fortunate to live in an area so close to so many bodies of water, and it is our responsibility to make sure that our industries and environment can exist together. It’s been a long road, and we still have a long way to go. The people of Oceanport have been so patient during this process. It’s nice to see movement forward.”
A meeting was held Monday night at Oceanport Borough Hall at which the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority discussed with the public its new plan to solve the run-off problem caused by Branchport Creek’s close proximity to Monmouth Park Racetrack. Senator Jennifer Beck, Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon and Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande were in attendance.
“For the past two years,” said O’Scanlon, who has been working towards a solution since the problem was first recognized, “I, along with Senator Beck and Assemblywoman Casagrande, have been working very hard to find a feasible solution to this pollution problem. We have been working with the residents and the Borough of Oceanport, the people at Monmouth Park and the Two Rivers Water Reclamation Authority to stop the pollution at Branchport Creek that has been making that water unsafe for the past several years. I am hopeful that we’ve finally found a solution.”
The agreement that has been reached, and that was presented at Monday night’s meeting, includes having Oceanport acting as a conduit to borrow up to $22 million for upgrades from the New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust, which will be repaid by the NJSEA on behalf of Oceanport Borough. The upgrades will entail a retention basin and pumping station, which will allow Monmouth Park to control the flow rate to the Two Rivers Water Reclamation Authority, and prevent run-off to Branchport Creek.
The four-year plan is expected to be complete by 2013, and although the residents are frustrated by this long process, steps have already begun to be taken. For instance, the flow of waste to the TRWRA has already been doubled for this racing season.
“Because of the planned retention basin and pumping station,” said Casagrande, “the former plan to hook up to the Long Branch Sewage Authority is no longer needed. Since the rate will be controlled, the LBSA doesn’t need to be involved. This has been a long road, with signs going up every year warning of the waste found in Branchport Creek. It will be a real success when we see those signs removed once and for all.”
“Racing is an important industry in New Jersey,” said Beck, “but not more important than the safety of our environment. We are fortunate to live in an area so close to so many bodies of water, and it is our responsibility to make sure that our industries and environment can exist together. It’s been a long road, and we still have a long way to go. The people of Oceanport have been so patient during this process. It’s nice to see movement forward.”
Stability and Lethargy in Asbury Park
By Tom DeSeno, MMM Southern Monmouth Reporter and FoxNews Pundit
The most interesting politics at the Jersey Shore has offered up another meager helping of numbers to crunch in last night’s City Council election.
Asbury Park puts the “poly” in politics, being one of the most racially and religiously diverse communities in all of New Jersey. The census will tell you the dense little City (double entendre when speaking of its management) is over 17,000 people packed into a little more than a square mile. However, those who live and work there will tell you the figure should be well over 20,000, due to the number of people who escape the attention of census takers as they work to escape the attention of Homeland Security’s Immigration Section.
They are also a people who, as a rule, hate to vote.
In 2001, 24 candidates ran for 5 open seats, 2476 voted, or 32% of the registered voters.
In 2005, 19 candidates ran for 5 open seats, 1915 voted, or 25% of registered voters.
Last night 12 candidates ran for 5 open seats, 1218 voted, or an embarrassing 17% of registered voters.
Asbury Park used to have 18 voting districts. They are down to 9. If someone challenges this at the county level, they may be down to 2.
One thing last night’s election proved (which is being proved in elections all over the country) is that the “Obama Bump” at the polls is reserved only for races where Barack Obama is running. A whopping 5,000 people voted in November’s Presidential election in Asbury Park, and they voted 9 to 1 for Obama. That means 75% of November’s Asbury Park voters stayed home because Obama wasn’t running.
That also means Republican John Curley will win a seat as County Freeholder in November, since he only lost last November because of the “Obama Bump.”
A difference this year in Asbury Park was that there were only about half the usual candidates. This was a refreshing change, since Asbury Park usually sees a great number of politically insane people running for office. This year, all of the candidates seemed worth a damn.
You’ll have to pick your favorite political analysis for why the interest in running for Asbury Park City Council or voting in its elections is dwindling:
- People are happy with the existing council so no one cares to vote;
- The economy has people too worried about other matters to care;
- Those who are most involved in the City aren’t registered to vote;
- Quite simply, the residents of Asbury Park simply don’t care to vote.
Maybe it’s a mixture off all of it.
The numbers do show some changing dynamics.
The center of the political Universe in Asbury Park this past decade has been Sanders, Loffredo and Bruno, who each won their third term last night, which is quite an accomplishment in Asbury Park. Before them the end of your first term here was usually marked by the beginning of your first indictment from the prosecutor.
When they first ran in 2001, Sanders was originally not on the ticket with Loffredo and Bruno. Political expedience and common sense brought them together: Bruno represents the old-time Asbury voters, who are quiet, yet there, albeit dwindling in size. Loffredo is from an old time family too, but also represents the best of the activist Gay and Lesbian Community in Asbury Park. Mayor Kevin Sanders is from a genesis African American Community in Asbury Park and brings in the vote from the West Side.
Kevin Sanders also ran the local Labor Ready franchise in the City. It’s easy to get votes when you give out the jobs, not that there’s anything wrong with that.
The team has proved quite formidable together, although any one of them would be in jeopardy without the team.
In 2005 Sanders received over 900 votes (half of all cast) in a field of 19 candidates. That blew away the field and was an enormous landslide, but it’s gone now. His third place showing put him just 12 votes in front of newcomer to politics (but not new to Asbury Park activism) Sue Henderson. Henderson received 9 more votes than Jim Bruno, the most vulnerable of the 5 incumbents who receives the least votes on his ticket.
That leaves Ed Johnson, who received the most votes last night. Don’t let his “smartest clerk in the world” persona fool you – Ed’s a great politician. In some respects, you might even say “sly.”
Originally appointed by Sanders, Loffredo and Bruno to fill a vacancy, he ran only begrudgingly with them in 2005, maintaining a shadow individual campaign in the background. It was a smart move. In that election, former councilman Jim Keady was landing heavy punches in the campaign against the incumbents (which earned him a seat). Ed managed to reap the votes of being both an insider and an outsider at the same time.
Ed Johnson has conducted himself the same way as councilman. For instance, on the hot-button issue of Eminent Domain, Ed has always voted against its use even when needed, leaving Sanders, Loffredo and Bruno to do the heavy lifting of voting for it. Yet when he was charged with writing the Springwood Avenue Redevelopment Plan, Johnson wrote into it that the City should have the power of Eminent Domain. Las Vegas odds say when a Springwood Avenue property comes to a vote for Eminent Domain, Ed will vote against it.
I deem him “Ed Johnson Kerry” – he voted for Eminent Domain before he voted against it. Like Bill Clinton he claims to be all things to all people on all issues, and it works for him – people are buying it.
This was the year the challengers could have picked off some incumbents. Amy Quinn was cream of the crop – a smart lawyer, volunteers mucho time to Asbury Park causes, is a double minority (woman and gay) and has the Asbury Park liberal aesthetic. But she ran alone. Kate Mellina was the rarity who won here running without a ticket. If Amy were on a ticket, she would have garnered the extra 88 votes needed to unseat Bruno.
Anthony Perillo’s showing was impressive for a second year newcomer. The formula for him to win next time is easy - stay involved and public for the next four years. If he disappears and shows up for the election 4 years from now, he’ll be no better than perennial last placer Harold Suggs.
Maureen Nevin and Rosetta Johnson did well and could have won but their campaign lacked on thing – former Councilman Jim Keady as a campaign manager. Jim knows how to bring the fight. Johnson likely knows more deep dark secrets about the City than anyone, and that should have been in media and on billboards throughout the election. Nevin successfully sued the incumbents in a Sunshine Law case. She had the moral high-ground against them, but didn’t make enough hay out of it.
This election also confirmed something we knew: AP Action, the Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, is as useless as a milk bucket under a bull.
Started by the late great Joe D’Andrea as a group to do community projects, it has turned into a group that shows up election time to make endorsement and that’s it. No one would even know of them if Nancy Shields at the Asbury Park Press didn’t write about them.
AP Action’s endorsements always lose when they try to bring up a candidate that’s an underdog. Mark that – THEIR CANDIDATES ALWAYS LOSE. Why? A huge chunk of the Gay and Lesbian community doesn’t register to vote here. That, and there aren’t as many gays in Asbury Park as some are led to believe. Many have moved to Wannamassa and Shark River Hills.
The current City Council appears diverse: Three gays, two blacks, one woman and a disabled man. Is that diverse enough for this City? No Latino? No Haitian? No one from the Southwest (as usual)? No one who has ever had to meet a payroll? No Conservative? Faux diversity.
The challenges for Asbury Park are quite the same as always. A failing, segregated school district with a $90 million budget (almost all of it subsidized by State and Federal taxpayers) while about 90 votes gets you a spot on the Board of Education.
A struggling retail economy that sees more turnover in stores than the Florida Marlins player roster. A beachfront redevelopment still showing “Art-Wrecko” buildings paralyzed not just by the economy but also by the current set of participants. New data even shows rising crime rates.
Wow. All those problems and only a 17% voter turnout. Good luck, Asbury Park.
Here were the results:
Ed Johnson, 706; John Loffredo, 624; Kevin Sanders, 591; Susan Henderson, 579; Jim Bruno, 570; Amy Quinn, 482; Anthony Perillo, 474; Rosetta Johnson, 462; Maureen Nevin, 403; Kevin Michel, 399; Elisabet Pacheco, 283; and Harold Suggs, 158.
The most interesting politics at the Jersey Shore has offered up another meager helping of numbers to crunch in last night’s City Council election.
Asbury Park puts the “poly” in politics, being one of the most racially and religiously diverse communities in all of New Jersey. The census will tell you the dense little City (double entendre when speaking of its management) is over 17,000 people packed into a little more than a square mile. However, those who live and work there will tell you the figure should be well over 20,000, due to the number of people who escape the attention of census takers as they work to escape the attention of Homeland Security’s Immigration Section.
They are also a people who, as a rule, hate to vote.
In 2001, 24 candidates ran for 5 open seats, 2476 voted, or 32% of the registered voters.
In 2005, 19 candidates ran for 5 open seats, 1915 voted, or 25% of registered voters.
Last night 12 candidates ran for 5 open seats, 1218 voted, or an embarrassing 17% of registered voters.
Asbury Park used to have 18 voting districts. They are down to 9. If someone challenges this at the county level, they may be down to 2.
One thing last night’s election proved (which is being proved in elections all over the country) is that the “Obama Bump” at the polls is reserved only for races where Barack Obama is running. A whopping 5,000 people voted in November’s Presidential election in Asbury Park, and they voted 9 to 1 for Obama. That means 75% of November’s Asbury Park voters stayed home because Obama wasn’t running.
That also means Republican John Curley will win a seat as County Freeholder in November, since he only lost last November because of the “Obama Bump.”
A difference this year in Asbury Park was that there were only about half the usual candidates. This was a refreshing change, since Asbury Park usually sees a great number of politically insane people running for office. This year, all of the candidates seemed worth a damn.
You’ll have to pick your favorite political analysis for why the interest in running for Asbury Park City Council or voting in its elections is dwindling:
- People are happy with the existing council so no one cares to vote;
- The economy has people too worried about other matters to care;
- Those who are most involved in the City aren’t registered to vote;
- Quite simply, the residents of Asbury Park simply don’t care to vote.
Maybe it’s a mixture off all of it.
The numbers do show some changing dynamics.
The center of the political Universe in Asbury Park this past decade has been Sanders, Loffredo and Bruno, who each won their third term last night, which is quite an accomplishment in Asbury Park. Before them the end of your first term here was usually marked by the beginning of your first indictment from the prosecutor.
When they first ran in 2001, Sanders was originally not on the ticket with Loffredo and Bruno. Political expedience and common sense brought them together: Bruno represents the old-time Asbury voters, who are quiet, yet there, albeit dwindling in size. Loffredo is from an old time family too, but also represents the best of the activist Gay and Lesbian Community in Asbury Park. Mayor Kevin Sanders is from a genesis African American Community in Asbury Park and brings in the vote from the West Side.
Kevin Sanders also ran the local Labor Ready franchise in the City. It’s easy to get votes when you give out the jobs, not that there’s anything wrong with that.
The team has proved quite formidable together, although any one of them would be in jeopardy without the team.
In 2005 Sanders received over 900 votes (half of all cast) in a field of 19 candidates. That blew away the field and was an enormous landslide, but it’s gone now. His third place showing put him just 12 votes in front of newcomer to politics (but not new to Asbury Park activism) Sue Henderson. Henderson received 9 more votes than Jim Bruno, the most vulnerable of the 5 incumbents who receives the least votes on his ticket.
That leaves Ed Johnson, who received the most votes last night. Don’t let his “smartest clerk in the world” persona fool you – Ed’s a great politician. In some respects, you might even say “sly.”
Originally appointed by Sanders, Loffredo and Bruno to fill a vacancy, he ran only begrudgingly with them in 2005, maintaining a shadow individual campaign in the background. It was a smart move. In that election, former councilman Jim Keady was landing heavy punches in the campaign against the incumbents (which earned him a seat). Ed managed to reap the votes of being both an insider and an outsider at the same time.
Ed Johnson has conducted himself the same way as councilman. For instance, on the hot-button issue of Eminent Domain, Ed has always voted against its use even when needed, leaving Sanders, Loffredo and Bruno to do the heavy lifting of voting for it. Yet when he was charged with writing the Springwood Avenue Redevelopment Plan, Johnson wrote into it that the City should have the power of Eminent Domain. Las Vegas odds say when a Springwood Avenue property comes to a vote for Eminent Domain, Ed will vote against it.
I deem him “Ed Johnson Kerry” – he voted for Eminent Domain before he voted against it. Like Bill Clinton he claims to be all things to all people on all issues, and it works for him – people are buying it.
This was the year the challengers could have picked off some incumbents. Amy Quinn was cream of the crop – a smart lawyer, volunteers mucho time to Asbury Park causes, is a double minority (woman and gay) and has the Asbury Park liberal aesthetic. But she ran alone. Kate Mellina was the rarity who won here running without a ticket. If Amy were on a ticket, she would have garnered the extra 88 votes needed to unseat Bruno.
Anthony Perillo’s showing was impressive for a second year newcomer. The formula for him to win next time is easy - stay involved and public for the next four years. If he disappears and shows up for the election 4 years from now, he’ll be no better than perennial last placer Harold Suggs.
Maureen Nevin and Rosetta Johnson did well and could have won but their campaign lacked on thing – former Councilman Jim Keady as a campaign manager. Jim knows how to bring the fight. Johnson likely knows more deep dark secrets about the City than anyone, and that should have been in media and on billboards throughout the election. Nevin successfully sued the incumbents in a Sunshine Law case. She had the moral high-ground against them, but didn’t make enough hay out of it.
This election also confirmed something we knew: AP Action, the Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, is as useless as a milk bucket under a bull.
Started by the late great Joe D’Andrea as a group to do community projects, it has turned into a group that shows up election time to make endorsement and that’s it. No one would even know of them if Nancy Shields at the Asbury Park Press didn’t write about them.
AP Action’s endorsements always lose when they try to bring up a candidate that’s an underdog. Mark that – THEIR CANDIDATES ALWAYS LOSE. Why? A huge chunk of the Gay and Lesbian community doesn’t register to vote here. That, and there aren’t as many gays in Asbury Park as some are led to believe. Many have moved to Wannamassa and Shark River Hills.
The current City Council appears diverse: Three gays, two blacks, one woman and a disabled man. Is that diverse enough for this City? No Latino? No Haitian? No one from the Southwest (as usual)? No one who has ever had to meet a payroll? No Conservative? Faux diversity.
The challenges for Asbury Park are quite the same as always. A failing, segregated school district with a $90 million budget (almost all of it subsidized by State and Federal taxpayers) while about 90 votes gets you a spot on the Board of Education.
A struggling retail economy that sees more turnover in stores than the Florida Marlins player roster. A beachfront redevelopment still showing “Art-Wrecko” buildings paralyzed not just by the economy but also by the current set of participants. New data even shows rising crime rates.
Wow. All those problems and only a 17% voter turnout. Good luck, Asbury Park.
Here were the results:
Ed Johnson, 706; John Loffredo, 624; Kevin Sanders, 591; Susan Henderson, 579; Jim Bruno, 570; Amy Quinn, 482; Anthony Perillo, 474; Rosetta Johnson, 462; Maureen Nevin, 403; Kevin Michel, 399; Elisabet Pacheco, 283; and Harold Suggs, 158.
By Lonegan's Standard, Christie Wins The Debate
If you missed the debate between Chris Christie and Steve Lonegan, you can watch the recording at NJN's website here.
My first impression of the debate was that it was a draw. However, after a second look, Christie was the clear victor, based on the standard that Lonegan set in his opening statement. If you are going to review the debate a second time, I suggest you listen to it rather than watch it.
Lonegan said in his opening that he would use the debate to offer a clear choice and convince Republican voters that he was clearly the candidate to lead the Republican Party and New Jersey. While Lonegan did fairly well in the debate, he failed to meet his own standard. He did not make a compelling case that he is the only conservative in the race nor did he make a compelling case that he was the best candidate to defeat Corzine in November.
On social issues, Christie surprisingly came off as the more conservative candidate. The only social issue raised was gay marriage. Lonegan said he favored making it a ballot question. Christie clearly stated that he believed that marriage was between one man and one woman. On rebuttal, Lonegan said, "I have nothing to rebut."
On style and zingers, Lonegan came off as personal and nasty. Christie actually landed many more punches, but did so on the issues and in a matter of fact, rather than nasty manner.
On economic and fiscal issues, Lonegan was confusing and did not offer a clear choice. On property tax rebates, Lonegan said that they are scam that have caused New Jersey's ballooning debt. Christie hit this out of the park, laying the cause of New Jersey's debt on Corzine, Codey and McGreevey.
Lonegan said he would cut the size of state government, eliminate 5 departments and layoff 15,000 state workers. That's all good, but why would it be necessary if property tax rebates are the cause of our ballooning debt? I realize that is not were Lonegan stands, but that is what he said.
Christie was clear. He would cut spending and cut taxes for everyone. He would keep property tax relief. He would institute zero based budgeting.
On health insurance, Lonegan really blew it. When asked by a viewer if he would increase funding for emergency hospital care for of the 15,000 state employees he would layoff, Lonegan said that would be Pennsylvania's problem because of all the state workers who live in Pennsylvania. He said that health care for laid off state workers is not an issue.
When asked about his health care plan, Christie rattled off his plan to make the system more competitive by allowing consumers to buy insurance out of state and allowing small businesses to band together in trade associations to buy insurance for their employees at lower rates. Lonegan said he agreed with Christie's proposals, but that Christie was weak on tort reform. Again, Christie hit it out of the park, revealing that he started his legal career as an attorney defending doctors from frivolous law suits and that "of course" we need tort reform.
Lonegan's revelation that his 23 year old daughter does not have health insurance, as if that was a good thing, was weird.
I could go on issue by issue, but there is no need. In the last half hour of the debate Lonegan repeatedly said he agreed with Christie. He said he was pleased the there are many issue they agree on. Christie spent the last half hour deflecting Lonegan's jabs as if they were a nuisance, landing counter punches and running against Corzine.
Based on the standard that Lonegan set for himself in his opening, Christie won the debate.
At a pre-debate rally, Lonegan told his supporters, “we’re going to open up a can of whoop-ass tonight.”
I'm not sure what that means, but I don't think he delivered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
