BY LINDA STAMATO
As Gov. Jon S. Corzine sells his plan for restructuring the state's finances, he has invited alternative ideas. As a citizen advocate of sound public policy, I offer mine.
The state needs to find a way back to fiscal sanity -- no question about that. The plan that is put into place must demonstrate unequivocally that state government will end its excesses and construct ways to prevent its members from acting irresponsibly -- so that if we can dig our way out of this $32 billion pit, we won't be put back in there again by short-sighted actions of our executive and legislative branches.
I don't buy the governor's "either/or" framework for fiscal salvation. We don't either need to increase the income tax by 20 percent or the sales tax by 30 percent or the gas tax by 12 cents or live with the governor's plan. A combination of approaches makes more sense: taxes, a freeze on spending and reductions in costs to accompany reasonable increases in tolls. An income-tax increase should not be summarily dismissed, certainly if equity is a consideration, and equity must be considered. An increase in the gas tax also makes sense in order to address transportation-related needs, including public transit, and, not least, encouraging fuel efficiencies and a reduction in carbon emissions. (To be sure, Gov. Corzine's own ambitious goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions ought to figure in the picture.) And the property-tax rebate program, moreover, which takes more than $2 billion from the state treasury, involves too significant a sum not to be considered.
Any plan will require sacrifice. It must be broad and deep, equitable, and sound in terms of policy and planning. And, as wild as it may seem, I think if we accept the fact that we need to deal aggressively with this challenge to the state's future solvency and, indeed, its survival as an attractive state in which to live and work, then why not try to alter the cost side of the ledger, say, the pension arrangements and other benefits currently given to public employees? If we cannot afford them, we ought to reduce the burden those benefits place on our citizens. To put it simply, why not renegotiate the terms? Why not at least try to equalize the burden of paying what we owe by reducing both the debt and the costs that contribute to it? Why not ask public employees as well as private workers (commuters) -- all citizens -- to do their part? After all, in one way or another, we benefited from the programs that created the state's debt.
As for the roadway toll increases and the use of tolls to finance debt reduction and transportation projects, why the need to create a public benefit corporation? Why not simply raise tolls and sell more bonds to pay down some of the debt and, at the same time, replenish the Transportation Trust Fund? In a combination approach less bonding is necessary. Higher tax revenues from gasoline, too, could augment these sums.
We need a mix of tax and toll increases along with reduced costs for pensions and benefits to constitute what the citizens of the state (and those who travel through it) will contribute. A mix will meet objections that will be raised, legitimately, by those who see the plan under consideration as regressive, falling disproportionately on those who use the toll roads.
What about the other side of the equation? What must be promised to gain the people's support to restructure our state's finances? If, by legislative act, we need to strengthen the constitution's debt limitation clause requiring voter approval for the issuance of bonds backed by the state, let's do it forthwith. Citizens have the right and the responsibility to make this decision.
While we may not save a lot by cutting out corruption and reducing waste, we ought to do it nonetheless -- plan or no plan. End abuses of pension benefits by elected and appointed officials such as dual-office holding; adding members to tax boards whose responsibilities have declined, not increased; appointing officials to lucrative state positions in order to gain their votes on legislation. Stop the practice of adding "Christmas Tree" items to the state budget by individual lawmakers outside established public processes, end payroll-padding, "pay-to-play," and all acts that satisfy special interests and violate the public trust.
We know what we have to do.
If there is no genuine effort to substantially improve the way government functions, to demonstrate courage and conviction, and to genuinely serve in the broad public interest, then no effort to establish fiscal stability will "sell."
This is not an argument to reject the governor's plan; it is an attempt to take it seriously, to modify and broaden it, to equalize its impact, and to reduce some of the costs that burden the state treasury. The future of our state depends upon us putting our fiscal house in order, but the solution needs to be more equitable and comprehensive than the one Mr. Corzine has presented.
The governor's plan starts the necessary dialogue. He is right to warn against delay, empty rhetoric, political posturing and excess partisanship. We need to move as swiftly as we can to get on the path toward financial solvency, sanity and sound governance.
Linda Stamato is co-director of the Center for Negotiation and Conflict Resolution at Rutgers University.
Corzine Continues to Ignore the People
By: Hank Butehorn
“Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.” The people of New Jersey should pay heed to Alexander Hamilton’s words from Federalist 1.
As Jon Corzine continues to try and impose his super secret massive toll hike scheme upon the people of the Garden State he continually disregards New Jersey’s residents and continues his march towards a Leftist state.
Since its inception Corzine has done all he could to keep the people in the dark about his monetization concept, has suppressed opposition, and has ignored concerns. He kept the plan from the people for a year, and there is still no bill outlining the details for the people to evaluate. The people continue to be kept in the dark about the bond deal, the public benefits corporation, and the analysis off the plan as well as the potential alternatives. Yet the governor wants everything about this 75 year commitment completed in the next month and a half, all without voter approval.
Despite the intent to burden four generations, the people continue to be kept out of the process. The most recent example is Corzine’s 17 member panel that will help him push this plan. The group is made up of insiders and the politically connected; the members – and their groups – all stand to benefit one way or another through this plan or future political favors. Noticeably missing from the group is anyone representing the tax payers or those who will incur the burden of the oppressive toll hikes.
As he tours the state to sell the plan he gives vague generalities and nicely phrased talking points about the benefits of the plan. He speaks of grand socialist utopian intentions wrapped in fiscal responsibility. In response to questions or objections he continually injects the possibility of other horrific and oppressive tax increases as an attempt to scare the people into supporting his proposal. This should be no surprise as he has a history of such tactics; last year the administration wrote a letter to local officials that basically constituted a threat that they support the plan.
His politics of fear, intimidation and imposition continued in Cape May - and took an alarming turn - with police tramping on rights protected by the First Amendment of those providing information to the people.
While Corzine is giving some people an opportunity to vent their frustrations at the county meetings, he disregards any input or viable alternatives. Polls indicate the people overwhelmingly support spending cuts, yet Corzine disregards their desires. Other polls indicate the public is overwhelmingly opposed to his plan, yet he continues to force it upon the people.
The Corzine tenure is far from the representative form of government established in New Jersey; it is far from a democracy. The governor has moved this state to the far fringes of the political Left towards a totalitarian state. This must end; the people must force a change in course. Corzine has staked his job on this toll hike scheme and the people will have an opportunity to fire him in 2009. However, before that time there are actions that can be taken to raise the volume of voter outrage.
Some municipalities and/or counties have introduced and/or passed resolutions opposing the governor’s scam. Everyone can lobby their local government to do the same. With ever growing local opposition the pressure against the plan will increase.
In addition, Americans for Prosperity is mounting a significant opposition to the plan and providing substantial information to the people about the true state of facts. All can join them in their efforts.
Last, contact your representatives in Trenton – and call the governor every day – to let him know the people do not support his super secret massive toll hike scheme. Remind them that – to quote Hamilton again – “here sir, the people govern.”
“Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.” The people of New Jersey should pay heed to Alexander Hamilton’s words from Federalist 1.
As Jon Corzine continues to try and impose his super secret massive toll hike scheme upon the people of the Garden State he continually disregards New Jersey’s residents and continues his march towards a Leftist state.
Since its inception Corzine has done all he could to keep the people in the dark about his monetization concept, has suppressed opposition, and has ignored concerns. He kept the plan from the people for a year, and there is still no bill outlining the details for the people to evaluate. The people continue to be kept in the dark about the bond deal, the public benefits corporation, and the analysis off the plan as well as the potential alternatives. Yet the governor wants everything about this 75 year commitment completed in the next month and a half, all without voter approval.
Despite the intent to burden four generations, the people continue to be kept out of the process. The most recent example is Corzine’s 17 member panel that will help him push this plan. The group is made up of insiders and the politically connected; the members – and their groups – all stand to benefit one way or another through this plan or future political favors. Noticeably missing from the group is anyone representing the tax payers or those who will incur the burden of the oppressive toll hikes.
As he tours the state to sell the plan he gives vague generalities and nicely phrased talking points about the benefits of the plan. He speaks of grand socialist utopian intentions wrapped in fiscal responsibility. In response to questions or objections he continually injects the possibility of other horrific and oppressive tax increases as an attempt to scare the people into supporting his proposal. This should be no surprise as he has a history of such tactics; last year the administration wrote a letter to local officials that basically constituted a threat that they support the plan.
His politics of fear, intimidation and imposition continued in Cape May - and took an alarming turn - with police tramping on rights protected by the First Amendment of those providing information to the people.
While Corzine is giving some people an opportunity to vent their frustrations at the county meetings, he disregards any input or viable alternatives. Polls indicate the people overwhelmingly support spending cuts, yet Corzine disregards their desires. Other polls indicate the public is overwhelmingly opposed to his plan, yet he continues to force it upon the people.
The Corzine tenure is far from the representative form of government established in New Jersey; it is far from a democracy. The governor has moved this state to the far fringes of the political Left towards a totalitarian state. This must end; the people must force a change in course. Corzine has staked his job on this toll hike scheme and the people will have an opportunity to fire him in 2009. However, before that time there are actions that can be taken to raise the volume of voter outrage.
Some municipalities and/or counties have introduced and/or passed resolutions opposing the governor’s scam. Everyone can lobby their local government to do the same. With ever growing local opposition the pressure against the plan will increase.
In addition, Americans for Prosperity is mounting a significant opposition to the plan and providing substantial information to the people about the true state of facts. All can join them in their efforts.
Last, contact your representatives in Trenton – and call the governor every day – to let him know the people do not support his super secret massive toll hike scheme. Remind them that – to quote Hamilton again – “here sir, the people govern.”
The Enduring Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.: A Better America
By Assembly Majority Leader Bonnie Watson Coleman
It will be 40 years this year that an assassin’s bullet killed civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. as he stood on a motel balcony in Memphis, Tennessee.
I was 22 years old that fateful day -- April 4, 1968 -- and I will never forget the moment when the bad news came. I was at a girlfriend’s home in Orange and we watched the news with tears in our eyes.
The next day, I went to work at what was my first significant job out of college, working as a senior field representative for the state Division of Civil Rights. My responsibility at the time was to investigate instances of discrimination involving housing and public accommodations – instances of service refusals like the Reverend King experienced in 1960 when he was arrested for seeking seating at an Atlanta restaurant.
I remember looking at my work that day with renewed pride and purpose, but weeping over the gnawing question that I could not shake out of my mind: “Why would anyone want to kill that nice man?”
In the black community at that time – especially among young people – there was a sense that the Reverend King was too passive. He was decidedly non-militant, an ardent preacher of non-violence.
With the clarity that comes with time, I now suspect that is what made him so powerful, but also so dangerous in the eyes of people who resisted change, understanding, and social progress. The tears have gone, but the hurt remains over the thoughts of what might have been if not for that solitary fatal bullet 40 years ago.
If the course of human events had been different and the Reverend King could still be with us this year, he would be 79. On each anniversary of his birthday, I can’t help but wonder how much different the world would be if Dr. King had been spared from martyrdom. Would we not be an even greater nation for the experience? I guess that is a dream of its own.
The unmistakable fact is that America is all the better for once having had the likes of the Reverend King as one of its crusading citizens -- a man who put his life on the line for the sake of promoting justice, equality and human harmony.
His imprints of positive change surround us and engulf us in both subtle and profound ways. This year alone, an African-American and a woman are both leading contenders for president. Until earlier this month, a man with a Hispanic lineage also was making a serious bid for his party’s presidential nomination. None of this could have been imagined four decades ago.
King’s effects are not just an anecdotal, they also are quantitative. A poll released last year demonstrates just how far this nation has come since King’s death. The survey, which was conducted by the Pew Research Center, shows that the population as a whole has become more tolerant on racial issues, particularly among younger Americans.
The Pew Center survey found that nearly half -- 49 percent -- of young whites between the ages of 18 and 25 completely rejected the notion that they “don’t have much in common with people of other races.” This is a marked improvement over the late 1980s, when only 24 percent rejected the notion they didn’t have much in common with people of other races.
The shift in acceptance among young whites is a direct result of the increasingly multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society that has emerged since the days of the civil rights movement. I submit that this attitudinal metamorphosis could not have occurred had it not been for Dr. King, his noble vision, and his commitment to non-violent confrontation.
But for all our progress, significant vestiges of intolerance remain in our country and our state. The Jena Six court case last year in Louisiana is a reminder of how racially charged incidents still occur in this country. Closer to home, the carving of a swastika into a Mercer County corn field last fall showed how hate can be just a stone’s throw away from our very own homes.
The same positive Pew Center poll indicating changing attitudes about race among Americans still found that an alarming 68 percent of blacks say they encounter racial discrimination today when applying for jobs, buying a home, renting an apartment, applying for college and shopping or dining out.
Barriers have been broken, but we still have a way to go. Dr. King’s struggle against injustice and rights-denied marches on.
As the nation commemorates Black History Month this February, all Americans should recognize that we still are short of achieving Reverend King’s courageous vision for a better future.
It’s not enough to just hold back tears. We must reach down and resolve to dedicate ourselves all the more to the mission of turning Dr. King’s valiant dream into reality.
Note: Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman is the Assembly Majority Leader. She represents the 15th Legislative District in Mercer County. She is the highest ranking African American elected official in state government.
It will be 40 years this year that an assassin’s bullet killed civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. as he stood on a motel balcony in Memphis, Tennessee.
I was 22 years old that fateful day -- April 4, 1968 -- and I will never forget the moment when the bad news came. I was at a girlfriend’s home in Orange and we watched the news with tears in our eyes.
The next day, I went to work at what was my first significant job out of college, working as a senior field representative for the state Division of Civil Rights. My responsibility at the time was to investigate instances of discrimination involving housing and public accommodations – instances of service refusals like the Reverend King experienced in 1960 when he was arrested for seeking seating at an Atlanta restaurant.
I remember looking at my work that day with renewed pride and purpose, but weeping over the gnawing question that I could not shake out of my mind: “Why would anyone want to kill that nice man?”
In the black community at that time – especially among young people – there was a sense that the Reverend King was too passive. He was decidedly non-militant, an ardent preacher of non-violence.
With the clarity that comes with time, I now suspect that is what made him so powerful, but also so dangerous in the eyes of people who resisted change, understanding, and social progress. The tears have gone, but the hurt remains over the thoughts of what might have been if not for that solitary fatal bullet 40 years ago.
If the course of human events had been different and the Reverend King could still be with us this year, he would be 79. On each anniversary of his birthday, I can’t help but wonder how much different the world would be if Dr. King had been spared from martyrdom. Would we not be an even greater nation for the experience? I guess that is a dream of its own.
The unmistakable fact is that America is all the better for once having had the likes of the Reverend King as one of its crusading citizens -- a man who put his life on the line for the sake of promoting justice, equality and human harmony.
His imprints of positive change surround us and engulf us in both subtle and profound ways. This year alone, an African-American and a woman are both leading contenders for president. Until earlier this month, a man with a Hispanic lineage also was making a serious bid for his party’s presidential nomination. None of this could have been imagined four decades ago.
King’s effects are not just an anecdotal, they also are quantitative. A poll released last year demonstrates just how far this nation has come since King’s death. The survey, which was conducted by the Pew Research Center, shows that the population as a whole has become more tolerant on racial issues, particularly among younger Americans.
The Pew Center survey found that nearly half -- 49 percent -- of young whites between the ages of 18 and 25 completely rejected the notion that they “don’t have much in common with people of other races.” This is a marked improvement over the late 1980s, when only 24 percent rejected the notion they didn’t have much in common with people of other races.
The shift in acceptance among young whites is a direct result of the increasingly multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society that has emerged since the days of the civil rights movement. I submit that this attitudinal metamorphosis could not have occurred had it not been for Dr. King, his noble vision, and his commitment to non-violent confrontation.
But for all our progress, significant vestiges of intolerance remain in our country and our state. The Jena Six court case last year in Louisiana is a reminder of how racially charged incidents still occur in this country. Closer to home, the carving of a swastika into a Mercer County corn field last fall showed how hate can be just a stone’s throw away from our very own homes.
The same positive Pew Center poll indicating changing attitudes about race among Americans still found that an alarming 68 percent of blacks say they encounter racial discrimination today when applying for jobs, buying a home, renting an apartment, applying for college and shopping or dining out.
Barriers have been broken, but we still have a way to go. Dr. King’s struggle against injustice and rights-denied marches on.
As the nation commemorates Black History Month this February, all Americans should recognize that we still are short of achieving Reverend King’s courageous vision for a better future.
It’s not enough to just hold back tears. We must reach down and resolve to dedicate ourselves all the more to the mission of turning Dr. King’s valiant dream into reality.
Note: Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman is the Assembly Majority Leader. She represents the 15th Legislative District in Mercer County. She is the highest ranking African American elected official in state government.
Seeking detente on the Delaware
By: Linda Stamato
The United States Supreme Court has just finished hearing arguments in the case between New Jersey and Delaware over New Jersey’s attempt to use its riverbank for a natural gas storage and processing plant and Delaware’s resistance to it. While we await the decision, which is likely to be several months away, let’s consider a better alternative than the win/lose outcome it will produce. Both states do, after all, have the opportunity to settle their dispute before the Court renders its decision.
A negotiated solution is only likely, though, if the tug of war over the river is framed in a different way than it has been so far. Delaware thinks it owns the river by virtue of a land grant from King Charles II to Quaker William Penn in 1682. Accordingly, “property ownership” assertions dominate. It claims the natural gas project would violate its Coastal Zone Act and refuses to issue a permit for it. New Jersey argues that a decision by the Supreme Court in 1934, recognizing “riparian rights” (the use of water by those who own land around it), would allow it to build a pier to make its property accessible, an exercise of “traditional riparian authority.” Accordingly, it claims it needs to build a 2,000 foot long pier in order to reach from the New Jersey shore to the navigable part of the river so tankers can dock and unload at the plant.
Reconciling these positions, framed this way, is unlikely in an adversarial process. Indeed, a win-lose outcome is all but assured. What is needed, instead, is to take an interest-based approach and frame the dispute, not as contentions over who owns what, but, rather, how the natural asset--the river and its banks—can be managed in a way to benefit the economic and environmental needs of both states and the region as a whole.
By the way, the natural gas that would arrive at the proposed terminal would be distributed around the region that needs it—enough to satisfy the energy needs of every home in New Jersey, Delaware and the four counties of Pennsylvania, or so asserts a spokesman for BP, the corporation that proposes to build the terminal.
Disputes of this kind occur often enough, the most recent include the contending claims of New York and New Jersey over ownership of Liberty Island and the dust-up between Pennsylvania and New Jersey over the dredging of the Delaware. It is unsettling to witness government at its least effective. Regional collaboration is essential. And, it’s not as though we don’t have some good examples of its efficacy. New York and New Jersey, through the Port of New York and New Jersey Authority, effectively manage common assets, don’t they? New Jersey and Delaware cooperate, for the most part, through the Delaware River Port Authority for the most part, right? So, why a controversy here?
Because when boundary or border disputes are framed in property ownership terms, as they are in this case, they are almost impossible to settle. They do not need to be determined at all, in our view, if a settlement can be achieved; in the case of a river dividing two states it is clearly preferable to negotiate. In fact, as if to underscore the point, federal officials and several states, including California, Arizona, and Nevada, just reached an unprecedented agreement on allocating water from the Colorado River that also puts in place measures to conserve and manage the two primary reservoirs--and provides financing for a third--that store water for the region. In effect through 2026, the negotiated agreement forestalls the litigation that was anticipated by all involved (and, unlike a litigated result, provides for review and modification if circumstances and needs change over time).
National experience confirms the efficacy of regional collaboration for dealing with difficult, complex and costly public issues where legitimate positions are in contention and a resolution must be secured. It has worked with such cross-border issues as highway location, rail freight operations, watershed protection and restoration, port development and power-generating plants.
Courts decide constitutional matters, clarify legal principles and establish precedent; by adjudicating “right or wrong” the matter ends. But formal court proceedings that can limit the involvement of all the various interests, are often not the most efficient or effective way to resolve disputes or to produce decisions that can work. The appearance of New Jersey and Delaware three times before the Supreme Court—over fishing rights, oyster beds, and now a natural gas plant, all variations on a border theme—suggests to us that a process other than litigation ought to be given a serious try.
Enough talk about economic sanctions, battleship diplomacy and military action. What is needed is a combination of good faith and a conviction to work out an equitable and environmentally sound result. The governors of both states ought to create a framework for negotiation, appoint representatives, and, since disputes over the Delaware River have had such a protracted and emotionally fraught history, appoint a mediator to help frame the issue and keep the discussions constructively focused.
In a twist of irony, it may well be that an opportunity not taken now may come later anyway. Reports from the Supreme Court’s hearing indicate that the justices found neither state’s argument fully persuasive. Justice Breyer has recused himself (he owns BP stock) and there is, thus, the possibility of a 4-4 vote. A tie at the Supreme Court means that the lower court judgment is affirmed. In this instance, though, there is no lower court judgment but only the report of a special master to investigate and recommend an action to the Court. (He ‘ruled’ for Delaware.) There is no precedent, evidently, for dealing with a tie vote in cases of original jurisdiction (matters between states), which suggests that the states may have to find a political solution.
Why not reach for it now, and, find a way to treat the river as the regional resource that it is?
The United States Supreme Court has just finished hearing arguments in the case between New Jersey and Delaware over New Jersey’s attempt to use its riverbank for a natural gas storage and processing plant and Delaware’s resistance to it. While we await the decision, which is likely to be several months away, let’s consider a better alternative than the win/lose outcome it will produce. Both states do, after all, have the opportunity to settle their dispute before the Court renders its decision.
A negotiated solution is only likely, though, if the tug of war over the river is framed in a different way than it has been so far. Delaware thinks it owns the river by virtue of a land grant from King Charles II to Quaker William Penn in 1682. Accordingly, “property ownership” assertions dominate. It claims the natural gas project would violate its Coastal Zone Act and refuses to issue a permit for it. New Jersey argues that a decision by the Supreme Court in 1934, recognizing “riparian rights” (the use of water by those who own land around it), would allow it to build a pier to make its property accessible, an exercise of “traditional riparian authority.” Accordingly, it claims it needs to build a 2,000 foot long pier in order to reach from the New Jersey shore to the navigable part of the river so tankers can dock and unload at the plant.
Reconciling these positions, framed this way, is unlikely in an adversarial process. Indeed, a win-lose outcome is all but assured. What is needed, instead, is to take an interest-based approach and frame the dispute, not as contentions over who owns what, but, rather, how the natural asset--the river and its banks—can be managed in a way to benefit the economic and environmental needs of both states and the region as a whole.
By the way, the natural gas that would arrive at the proposed terminal would be distributed around the region that needs it—enough to satisfy the energy needs of every home in New Jersey, Delaware and the four counties of Pennsylvania, or so asserts a spokesman for BP, the corporation that proposes to build the terminal.
Disputes of this kind occur often enough, the most recent include the contending claims of New York and New Jersey over ownership of Liberty Island and the dust-up between Pennsylvania and New Jersey over the dredging of the Delaware. It is unsettling to witness government at its least effective. Regional collaboration is essential. And, it’s not as though we don’t have some good examples of its efficacy. New York and New Jersey, through the Port of New York and New Jersey Authority, effectively manage common assets, don’t they? New Jersey and Delaware cooperate, for the most part, through the Delaware River Port Authority for the most part, right? So, why a controversy here?
Because when boundary or border disputes are framed in property ownership terms, as they are in this case, they are almost impossible to settle. They do not need to be determined at all, in our view, if a settlement can be achieved; in the case of a river dividing two states it is clearly preferable to negotiate. In fact, as if to underscore the point, federal officials and several states, including California, Arizona, and Nevada, just reached an unprecedented agreement on allocating water from the Colorado River that also puts in place measures to conserve and manage the two primary reservoirs--and provides financing for a third--that store water for the region. In effect through 2026, the negotiated agreement forestalls the litigation that was anticipated by all involved (and, unlike a litigated result, provides for review and modification if circumstances and needs change over time).
National experience confirms the efficacy of regional collaboration for dealing with difficult, complex and costly public issues where legitimate positions are in contention and a resolution must be secured. It has worked with such cross-border issues as highway location, rail freight operations, watershed protection and restoration, port development and power-generating plants.
Courts decide constitutional matters, clarify legal principles and establish precedent; by adjudicating “right or wrong” the matter ends. But formal court proceedings that can limit the involvement of all the various interests, are often not the most efficient or effective way to resolve disputes or to produce decisions that can work. The appearance of New Jersey and Delaware three times before the Supreme Court—over fishing rights, oyster beds, and now a natural gas plant, all variations on a border theme—suggests to us that a process other than litigation ought to be given a serious try.
Enough talk about economic sanctions, battleship diplomacy and military action. What is needed is a combination of good faith and a conviction to work out an equitable and environmentally sound result. The governors of both states ought to create a framework for negotiation, appoint representatives, and, since disputes over the Delaware River have had such a protracted and emotionally fraught history, appoint a mediator to help frame the issue and keep the discussions constructively focused.
In a twist of irony, it may well be that an opportunity not taken now may come later anyway. Reports from the Supreme Court’s hearing indicate that the justices found neither state’s argument fully persuasive. Justice Breyer has recused himself (he owns BP stock) and there is, thus, the possibility of a 4-4 vote. A tie at the Supreme Court means that the lower court judgment is affirmed. In this instance, though, there is no lower court judgment but only the report of a special master to investigate and recommend an action to the Court. (He ‘ruled’ for Delaware.) There is no precedent, evidently, for dealing with a tie vote in cases of original jurisdiction (matters between states), which suggests that the states may have to find a political solution.
Why not reach for it now, and, find a way to treat the river as the regional resource that it is?
Hillary Clinton’s Campaign – A Foreshadow of her Presidency?
By Michael M. Shapiro
First it was Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire Co-Chair Billy Shaheen, then Clinton pollster and top strategist Mark Penn, and finally BET Television Founder and prominent Clinton supporter Bob Johnson, who raised the question of drug use by Barack Obama WHILE HE WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL. Clinton surrogates have continued to fan the flames. Could this be an attempt by that campaign to scare voters into changing their support from Obama to Clinton? The “drug use” attack against Obama has worked: his momentum has slowed and Mrs. Clinton is now ahead in key states. Interestingly, the Clinton supporters raising the issue of Obama’s drug use did not question Bill Clinton’s use of drugs post-high school or his excuse that he did not inhale. If it were just the “drug use” attack, perhaps it could be forgiven. However, other tactics employed by Clinton allies and Mrs. Clinton herself raise troubling questions as to whether her possible presidency would employ similar strategies.
The recent Martin Luther King/Lyndon Johnson controversy in which the Clintons themselves injected racial politics into the Democratic race by downplaying Barack Obama’s achievements; the mysterious robocalls to primary voters falsely claiming that Barack Obama is a Muslim who was educated in a radical madrassa; or the lawsuit filed by the Nevada Teacher’s Union, a key Clinton ally, to try to overturn decisions made regarding polling locations that had been supported by the Clinton campaign when they were 25% ahead in Nevada -- these kinds of political tactics are emblematic of what is wrong with politics and why so many Americans are apathetic.
These efforts are also divisive and reminiscent of the kind of politics that has been practiced as an art form by Karl Rove and the Bush Administration during the past seven years. For Hillary Clinton, or any other candidate, to speak about changing and reforming politics in this country while engaging in such schemes is hypocritical. Furthermore, should the Clinton or any other campaign continue to practice such tactics, they risk polarizing the Democratic Party as well as the country over race, age, and gender. What both the Democratic Party and the country do not need right now is more divisiveness and gutter politics. It is time for the public and the media to ask, “if the Clinton campaign is engaging in these kinds of tactics in a Democratic Primary, is this how a Hillary Clinton presidency will function?”
Michael M. Shapiro, founder of ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence, New Jersey. He currently serves as the Editor of The Alternative Press, www.thealternativepress.com. Contact Mike at mike@shaptalk.com.
First it was Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire Co-Chair Billy Shaheen, then Clinton pollster and top strategist Mark Penn, and finally BET Television Founder and prominent Clinton supporter Bob Johnson, who raised the question of drug use by Barack Obama WHILE HE WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL. Clinton surrogates have continued to fan the flames. Could this be an attempt by that campaign to scare voters into changing their support from Obama to Clinton? The “drug use” attack against Obama has worked: his momentum has slowed and Mrs. Clinton is now ahead in key states. Interestingly, the Clinton supporters raising the issue of Obama’s drug use did not question Bill Clinton’s use of drugs post-high school or his excuse that he did not inhale. If it were just the “drug use” attack, perhaps it could be forgiven. However, other tactics employed by Clinton allies and Mrs. Clinton herself raise troubling questions as to whether her possible presidency would employ similar strategies.
The recent Martin Luther King/Lyndon Johnson controversy in which the Clintons themselves injected racial politics into the Democratic race by downplaying Barack Obama’s achievements; the mysterious robocalls to primary voters falsely claiming that Barack Obama is a Muslim who was educated in a radical madrassa; or the lawsuit filed by the Nevada Teacher’s Union, a key Clinton ally, to try to overturn decisions made regarding polling locations that had been supported by the Clinton campaign when they were 25% ahead in Nevada -- these kinds of political tactics are emblematic of what is wrong with politics and why so many Americans are apathetic.
These efforts are also divisive and reminiscent of the kind of politics that has been practiced as an art form by Karl Rove and the Bush Administration during the past seven years. For Hillary Clinton, or any other candidate, to speak about changing and reforming politics in this country while engaging in such schemes is hypocritical. Furthermore, should the Clinton or any other campaign continue to practice such tactics, they risk polarizing the Democratic Party as well as the country over race, age, and gender. What both the Democratic Party and the country do not need right now is more divisiveness and gutter politics. It is time for the public and the media to ask, “if the Clinton campaign is engaging in these kinds of tactics in a Democratic Primary, is this how a Hillary Clinton presidency will function?”
Michael M. Shapiro, founder of ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence, New Jersey. He currently serves as the Editor of The Alternative Press, www.thealternativepress.com. Contact Mike at mike@shaptalk.com.
On Mandarisnism and Our Schools
BY JARRETT E. CHAPIN
To hold that a student is only as good as the schoolhouse is to paint a pretty stark picture of humanity and human potential. If we believe that education is a function of the school, of architecture, then we meet on bizarre ground where schools are the only means through which a person can become a learned, productive, and socialized member of society. Personally, I agree with the notion that, rather than constituting the only means of leaning and transmission, schools are “only one means, and, compared with other agencies a relatively superficial means” at that.
Public and Private or Worlds Apart?
A study conducted recently by the Center of Education Policy (CEP) provides evidence to suggest that the school is not the center of learning. Comparing the effectiveness of private versus that of public school environments the CEP uses new indicators to figure a student’s background into the calculation. The study finds that “low-income students from urban public high schools generally did as well academically and on long-term indicators as their peers from private high schools, once key family background characteristics were considered. In particular, the study determined that when family background was taken into account, the following findings emerged:
1. Students attending independent private high schools, most types of parochial high schools, and public high schools of choice performed no better on achievement tests in math, reading, science, and history than their counterparts in traditional public high schools.
2. Students who had attended any type of private high school ended up no more likely to attend college than their counterparts at traditional public high schools.
3. Young adults who had attended any type of private high school ended up with no more job satisfaction at age 26 than young adults who had attended traditional public high schools.
4. Young adults who had attended any type of private high school ended up no more engaged in civic activities at age 26 than young adults who had attended traditional public high schools.
Taken as a whole, these findings suggest that students who attend private high schools receive neither immediate academic advantages nor longer-term advantages in attending college, finding satisfaction in the job market, or participating in civic life.”
What is suggested in this report is that private school students benefit not from their family’s education-buying power but rather their ability to spend resources on time, comfort, goods, and security. Students therefore do well as the consequence of a secure family environment and strong parental involvement and encouragement. The report notes specifically that: “‘lower-income students have fewer educational resources in their home than students from higher-income families, and their parents often have less time and education to support their children’s learning.’”
Cultural Capitalists
Most interesting, the findings of this study introduce the notion of “cultural capital” which I would call the currency of our conservative education situation, or of Mandarinism. Specifically, the CEP reports:
“The family advantage is not purely a financial one. As might be expected, independent school parents are more affluent; otherwise, they could not afford independent school tuitions, which are the highest of all private school tuitions. They also offer an advantage referred to by researchers as “cultural capital.” Affluent students often engage in different types of activities than less affluent students do. They are .more likely to go to museums with their parents, take music lessons, participate in academic enrichment experiences, and discuss academic issues with their parents and peers. In many cases, less affluent students have access to these experiences only if they are offered by the school. These experiences form a store of cultural knowledge, or cultural capital, on which affluent students can draw in their classes and on assessments.”
In addition, the notion of “creaming” or filtering and funneling higher scoring students into more prestigious and comfortable schools, the sedimented educational experience of low-income students is practically predestined from kindergarten onward. In this country, our unique network of student testing and performance-based exclusion creates a very conservative effect which, through a system of outcome based tests, keeps the children of American mandarin families glued to tight educational agendas with clearly defined paths to success. Those children whose parents have never traveled this educational career path are free to follow in their parents’ footsteps or break—by some miracle—into a competitive labyrinth without the map and support that has been provided their peers.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) within the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has released a similar report “Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling.” In this report, a bit more technically than CEP, NAEP finds “…that demographic differences between students in public and private schools more than account for the relatively raw scores of private schools. Indeed after controlling these differences, the presumably advantageous ‘private school effect’ disappears and even reverses in most cases.”
Briefly, by adjusting average student mean scores in public and private schools to reflect differences in “race/ethnicity, gender, or student reported parent’s highest level of education” the weighted scores of students in both public and private schools were found to be very similar. In some cases, weighted public school scores were found to be higher than those in private schools.
It should not surprise us to hear that NAEP’s indicators, which might now be seen as the core of educational successes and failures, have little to do with the financial situation of the school and more to do with the living conditions they describe. The CEP and NAEP studies suggest that the school itself, though we would like to think otherwise, is not the ultimate cause of satisfactory educational outcomes.
The Terms of Trade
Our current efforts at school equity can only aggravate the situation by trading the minds and futures of students for the architecture and administration of the school. When we erect Abbot districts or adjusted spending levels that are thought to be education-adequate, we assume that students are empty vessels to be topped off with $15,035 of education. When that sufficient sum of $15,035 fails to produce sufficient scores during the course of our endless American standards tests, then either the amount was not enough or we begin to suspect that the vessel is broken. How have we come to value the architecture of the school so much and the student so little?
Perhaps it is that case that when we walk the dilapidated hallways of rural or neglected, under funded and urban schools we cannot imagine a successful education therein. Because we have heard that the children here suffer from its lack, the architecture becomes convincing evidence that education is not here, because here education has no place to live, because the children are not at fault—the institution has failed them. It has to be this way, I guess. It has to be the school that fails the student and not the other way around.
We favor the school’s dilapidation as the cause because in some distorted way we prefer to see that the school, and not the student, is incapable of education. Instead, in the humanist purview, every student is equal and only an instance of the infinitely capable type. Perhaps, for some of us, it is because we know where they live, and we know how much their parents earn and what they have achieved. Consequently, we fund the school and come negatively to the conclusion that school is the antecedent, for better or for worse, of education.
A System of Blame
To honor these terms is a mistake. Neither school, nor student, is the necessary cause of education’s failure. The parents are not to blame, and neither, directly, are the critics, edvocates, and policy makers. But if the school isn’t to blame, how will we diagnose toward a solution? Importantly, on what can we blame this education failure and if we have to spend so much on education, where best can we overspend?
It is just as easy to fail in a house made of gold, as it is to fail in a shack made of driftwood—or an igloo even. You can fail a course taught by the education god John Dewey just as easily as you can fail in a school with a low teacher-to-student ratio, adequate funding, a lab full of brand new computers, etc. I find it very hard to believe that no one ever failed a course taught by John Dewey. The question persists, if not the school, if not the student, who is to blame?
To hold that a student is only as good as the schoolhouse is to paint a pretty stark picture of humanity and human potential. If we believe that education is a function of the school, of architecture, then we meet on bizarre ground where schools are the only means through which a person can become a learned, productive, and socialized member of society. Personally, I agree with the notion that, rather than constituting the only means of leaning and transmission, schools are “only one means, and, compared with other agencies a relatively superficial means” at that.
Public and Private or Worlds Apart?
A study conducted recently by the Center of Education Policy (CEP) provides evidence to suggest that the school is not the center of learning. Comparing the effectiveness of private versus that of public school environments the CEP uses new indicators to figure a student’s background into the calculation. The study finds that “low-income students from urban public high schools generally did as well academically and on long-term indicators as their peers from private high schools, once key family background characteristics were considered. In particular, the study determined that when family background was taken into account, the following findings emerged:
1. Students attending independent private high schools, most types of parochial high schools, and public high schools of choice performed no better on achievement tests in math, reading, science, and history than their counterparts in traditional public high schools.
2. Students who had attended any type of private high school ended up no more likely to attend college than their counterparts at traditional public high schools.
3. Young adults who had attended any type of private high school ended up with no more job satisfaction at age 26 than young adults who had attended traditional public high schools.
4. Young adults who had attended any type of private high school ended up no more engaged in civic activities at age 26 than young adults who had attended traditional public high schools.
Taken as a whole, these findings suggest that students who attend private high schools receive neither immediate academic advantages nor longer-term advantages in attending college, finding satisfaction in the job market, or participating in civic life.”
What is suggested in this report is that private school students benefit not from their family’s education-buying power but rather their ability to spend resources on time, comfort, goods, and security. Students therefore do well as the consequence of a secure family environment and strong parental involvement and encouragement. The report notes specifically that: “‘lower-income students have fewer educational resources in their home than students from higher-income families, and their parents often have less time and education to support their children’s learning.’”
Cultural Capitalists
Most interesting, the findings of this study introduce the notion of “cultural capital” which I would call the currency of our conservative education situation, or of Mandarinism. Specifically, the CEP reports:
“The family advantage is not purely a financial one. As might be expected, independent school parents are more affluent; otherwise, they could not afford independent school tuitions, which are the highest of all private school tuitions. They also offer an advantage referred to by researchers as “cultural capital.” Affluent students often engage in different types of activities than less affluent students do. They are .more likely to go to museums with their parents, take music lessons, participate in academic enrichment experiences, and discuss academic issues with their parents and peers. In many cases, less affluent students have access to these experiences only if they are offered by the school. These experiences form a store of cultural knowledge, or cultural capital, on which affluent students can draw in their classes and on assessments.”
In addition, the notion of “creaming” or filtering and funneling higher scoring students into more prestigious and comfortable schools, the sedimented educational experience of low-income students is practically predestined from kindergarten onward. In this country, our unique network of student testing and performance-based exclusion creates a very conservative effect which, through a system of outcome based tests, keeps the children of American mandarin families glued to tight educational agendas with clearly defined paths to success. Those children whose parents have never traveled this educational career path are free to follow in their parents’ footsteps or break—by some miracle—into a competitive labyrinth without the map and support that has been provided their peers.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) within the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has released a similar report “Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling.” In this report, a bit more technically than CEP, NAEP finds “…that demographic differences between students in public and private schools more than account for the relatively raw scores of private schools. Indeed after controlling these differences, the presumably advantageous ‘private school effect’ disappears and even reverses in most cases.”
Briefly, by adjusting average student mean scores in public and private schools to reflect differences in “race/ethnicity, gender, or student reported parent’s highest level of education” the weighted scores of students in both public and private schools were found to be very similar. In some cases, weighted public school scores were found to be higher than those in private schools.
It should not surprise us to hear that NAEP’s indicators, which might now be seen as the core of educational successes and failures, have little to do with the financial situation of the school and more to do with the living conditions they describe. The CEP and NAEP studies suggest that the school itself, though we would like to think otherwise, is not the ultimate cause of satisfactory educational outcomes.
The Terms of Trade
Our current efforts at school equity can only aggravate the situation by trading the minds and futures of students for the architecture and administration of the school. When we erect Abbot districts or adjusted spending levels that are thought to be education-adequate, we assume that students are empty vessels to be topped off with $15,035 of education. When that sufficient sum of $15,035 fails to produce sufficient scores during the course of our endless American standards tests, then either the amount was not enough or we begin to suspect that the vessel is broken. How have we come to value the architecture of the school so much and the student so little?
Perhaps it is that case that when we walk the dilapidated hallways of rural or neglected, under funded and urban schools we cannot imagine a successful education therein. Because we have heard that the children here suffer from its lack, the architecture becomes convincing evidence that education is not here, because here education has no place to live, because the children are not at fault—the institution has failed them. It has to be this way, I guess. It has to be the school that fails the student and not the other way around.
We favor the school’s dilapidation as the cause because in some distorted way we prefer to see that the school, and not the student, is incapable of education. Instead, in the humanist purview, every student is equal and only an instance of the infinitely capable type. Perhaps, for some of us, it is because we know where they live, and we know how much their parents earn and what they have achieved. Consequently, we fund the school and come negatively to the conclusion that school is the antecedent, for better or for worse, of education.
A System of Blame
To honor these terms is a mistake. Neither school, nor student, is the necessary cause of education’s failure. The parents are not to blame, and neither, directly, are the critics, edvocates, and policy makers. But if the school isn’t to blame, how will we diagnose toward a solution? Importantly, on what can we blame this education failure and if we have to spend so much on education, where best can we overspend?
It is just as easy to fail in a house made of gold, as it is to fail in a shack made of driftwood—or an igloo even. You can fail a course taught by the education god John Dewey just as easily as you can fail in a school with a low teacher-to-student ratio, adequate funding, a lab full of brand new computers, etc. I find it very hard to believe that no one ever failed a course taught by John Dewey. The question persists, if not the school, if not the student, who is to blame?
You Can Go Home Again
By Michael P. Riccards
Novelist Thomas Wolfe was wrong; you can go home again—at least to Michigan and after 40 years absence. Mitt Romney swept John McCain in the Republican primary. He showed vividly what is wrong with Senator McCain’s approach. Going into the state with the highest unemployment rate in the nation, McCain resorted to form. He did not talk about economic security and the erratic stock markets, nor even about the mortgage crisis. McCain stuck to Iraq. He insists that he has stayed the course by demanding that the USA field more money and more brave troops into that civil war morass.
McCain was quoted as saying to press people that he expects the USA will stay in Iraq for a century! The Iraqi Defense Minister has just said that we must be there until at least 2018. As for the unemployed masses in Michigan, McCain thought it was being candid to tell them that they would never get their jobs back. Fifty year olds should go to community college. It was a variation of the straight talking speech in a factory in the film “Primary Colors” except John Travolta did it better.
Romney was smarter in Michigan, the state that elected his late father to three terms as governor. Romney offered them hope, new jobs, some sort of economic growth policy by which they could pay the bills. The only other options are to move to the South or stay in Detroit and die on the vine. McCain seems not to have understood what life is like for the non-heroic of us.
Like Obama, Romney said that the people in Michigan need hope and that they distrusted Washington insiders. Many think that Romney is a trimmer, a lightweight businessman. But he sells things which means, in politics, he sells himself. As the economy is tanking he smells an issue that could work not just for Democrats but for his own cause as well. “It is the economy, stupid,” James Carville yelled in the 1992 Clinton victory. Now, in a more perilous time we are faced with more difficult choices. 1992 did not see a hemorrhaging of $9 billion a month for the Iraq war; $1.5 trillion indebtedness to the People’s Republic of China; oil prices that are moving out of sight.
The economy is being linked up with economy insecurity and with the lack of universal medical coverage. Excessive use of fossil fuels is being linked up inflation, national debts and environmental problems. We have been since World War II, the major prophets of world trade, and now we are recognizing that the rest of the world is just not at the same place as it was in 1945. It is no longer a place on which we can dump our goods and products. We have lost blue-collar jobs and now white collars jobs abroad. The President is a supplicant in front of Saudi Arabian princes on oil prices, and our once major banks are borrowing from Singapore and Hong King.
It is the economy, stupid.
Novelist Thomas Wolfe was wrong; you can go home again—at least to Michigan and after 40 years absence. Mitt Romney swept John McCain in the Republican primary. He showed vividly what is wrong with Senator McCain’s approach. Going into the state with the highest unemployment rate in the nation, McCain resorted to form. He did not talk about economic security and the erratic stock markets, nor even about the mortgage crisis. McCain stuck to Iraq. He insists that he has stayed the course by demanding that the USA field more money and more brave troops into that civil war morass.
McCain was quoted as saying to press people that he expects the USA will stay in Iraq for a century! The Iraqi Defense Minister has just said that we must be there until at least 2018. As for the unemployed masses in Michigan, McCain thought it was being candid to tell them that they would never get their jobs back. Fifty year olds should go to community college. It was a variation of the straight talking speech in a factory in the film “Primary Colors” except John Travolta did it better.
Romney was smarter in Michigan, the state that elected his late father to three terms as governor. Romney offered them hope, new jobs, some sort of economic growth policy by which they could pay the bills. The only other options are to move to the South or stay in Detroit and die on the vine. McCain seems not to have understood what life is like for the non-heroic of us.
Like Obama, Romney said that the people in Michigan need hope and that they distrusted Washington insiders. Many think that Romney is a trimmer, a lightweight businessman. But he sells things which means, in politics, he sells himself. As the economy is tanking he smells an issue that could work not just for Democrats but for his own cause as well. “It is the economy, stupid,” James Carville yelled in the 1992 Clinton victory. Now, in a more perilous time we are faced with more difficult choices. 1992 did not see a hemorrhaging of $9 billion a month for the Iraq war; $1.5 trillion indebtedness to the People’s Republic of China; oil prices that are moving out of sight.
The economy is being linked up with economy insecurity and with the lack of universal medical coverage. Excessive use of fossil fuels is being linked up inflation, national debts and environmental problems. We have been since World War II, the major prophets of world trade, and now we are recognizing that the rest of the world is just not at the same place as it was in 1945. It is no longer a place on which we can dump our goods and products. We have lost blue-collar jobs and now white collars jobs abroad. The President is a supplicant in front of Saudi Arabian princes on oil prices, and our once major banks are borrowing from Singapore and Hong King.
It is the economy, stupid.
Free Speech: The Hallmark of the American Experiment
By Salvatore Pizzuro
On Saturday, January 19, 2008, former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan was arrested just minutes before Gov. Jon Corzine was to begin a public town meeting to promote his highway toll increase plan. The Mayor was handing out literature critical of the Governor’s plan outside the Middle Township High School in Cape May County, along with radio personality Seth Grossman. Local police confronted him, demanding that he cease distributing his material. Eventually, Mayor Lonegan and Grossman were handcuffed and taken to police headquarters.
As a liberal Democrat, I have gone on record in the past, disagreeing with the conservative Republican Lonegan on a variety of issues. However, I agreed with the former Mayor’s position on the need for more openness and honesty in Government. I must also agree with his premise that he has a right to criticize those in Government whose plans for the future Lonegan does not endorse.
I have also taken the public position that we must give Governor Corzine the opportunity to resolve the unprecedented fiscal crisis that New Jersey now faces. Corzine gave up a safe U.S. Senate seat to run for governor in order to solve problems that were created long before he came onto the public political scene. No one has offered plausible alternatives to Corzine’s plan. I also believe that Lonegan’s actions stem more from his political ambitions than his mission of public service. Nevertheless, free speech is the hallmark of a free society. The founding fathers knew that without free speech there was no hope of creating a truly free society in which everyone can play a role, without fear of reprisal from those more powerful.
Some (in fact many) may disagree with Lonegan. However, he has a right to be heard. What took place outside the Middle Township High School in Cape May County is a threat to the fundamental rights of all Americans. If history has taught us nothing else, it has taught us that either everyone has rights or no one has rights. We don’t have to agree with Steve Lonegan, but is our responsibility to fight for his right to present his position to the public.
On Saturday, January 19, 2008, former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan was arrested just minutes before Gov. Jon Corzine was to begin a public town meeting to promote his highway toll increase plan. The Mayor was handing out literature critical of the Governor’s plan outside the Middle Township High School in Cape May County, along with radio personality Seth Grossman. Local police confronted him, demanding that he cease distributing his material. Eventually, Mayor Lonegan and Grossman were handcuffed and taken to police headquarters.
As a liberal Democrat, I have gone on record in the past, disagreeing with the conservative Republican Lonegan on a variety of issues. However, I agreed with the former Mayor’s position on the need for more openness and honesty in Government. I must also agree with his premise that he has a right to criticize those in Government whose plans for the future Lonegan does not endorse.
I have also taken the public position that we must give Governor Corzine the opportunity to resolve the unprecedented fiscal crisis that New Jersey now faces. Corzine gave up a safe U.S. Senate seat to run for governor in order to solve problems that were created long before he came onto the public political scene. No one has offered plausible alternatives to Corzine’s plan. I also believe that Lonegan’s actions stem more from his political ambitions than his mission of public service. Nevertheless, free speech is the hallmark of a free society. The founding fathers knew that without free speech there was no hope of creating a truly free society in which everyone can play a role, without fear of reprisal from those more powerful.
Some (in fact many) may disagree with Lonegan. However, he has a right to be heard. What took place outside the Middle Township High School in Cape May County is a threat to the fundamental rights of all Americans. If history has taught us nothing else, it has taught us that either everyone has rights or no one has rights. We don’t have to agree with Steve Lonegan, but is our responsibility to fight for his right to present his position to the public.
The Party Democracy Act -- a Step in the Right Direction
By: Michael M. Shapiro
The Party Democracy Act, sponsored by New Jersey State Senators Diane Allen (R) and Loretta Weinberg (D), is a step in the right direction. How the major County political parties operate in New Jersey is largely unknown. Yet, they have a great deal of power, including the ability to fill legislative vacancies as they arise. Reform is needed to create more openness and accountability of our County political parties.
The Party Democracy Act requires all County political parties to have by-laws and a constitution that are available to all Committeepeople within 48 hours of being requested. Currently, a number of County parties do not have by-laws or a constitution; therefore, the rules can be established (and potentially manipulated) by the County Chairperson so that his/her preferred candidate or position can rule the day. Having written by-laws and a constitution will afford all Committeepeople a level playing field in which to exercise their rights and obligations.
The Act also requires that when a Committeeperson resigns, he/she must do so in a notarized writing. Such a reform is especially important given that fraudulent resignations can alter the balance of power on crucial votes and the County parties have not been shy about resorting to such tactics to impose their will.
The most important reform under the proposed Act is that when legislative vacancies are filled by the County parties, a voting machine must be used. Currently, the County Chairperson often endorses a candidate and requests a voice vote to determine the winner. Because of the power of the Chairperson, Committeepeople are reluctant to cast a public vote against the Chairperson’s choice. A vote by machine will enable Committeepeople to vote their conscience rather than simply be forced to accept the Chairperson’s recommendation.
The Party Democracy Act will help to standardize the operations of the County parties throughout the State and will enable Committeepeople to have the knowledge and freedom so that they are able to honestly and effectively perform their duties. In the process, the openness and transparency of County parties will increase.
Michael M. Shapiro, founder of ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence, New Jersey. He currently serves as the Editor of The Alternative Press, www.thealternativepress.com Contact Mike at mike@shaptalk.com
The Party Democracy Act, sponsored by New Jersey State Senators Diane Allen (R) and Loretta Weinberg (D), is a step in the right direction. How the major County political parties operate in New Jersey is largely unknown. Yet, they have a great deal of power, including the ability to fill legislative vacancies as they arise. Reform is needed to create more openness and accountability of our County political parties.
The Party Democracy Act requires all County political parties to have by-laws and a constitution that are available to all Committeepeople within 48 hours of being requested. Currently, a number of County parties do not have by-laws or a constitution; therefore, the rules can be established (and potentially manipulated) by the County Chairperson so that his/her preferred candidate or position can rule the day. Having written by-laws and a constitution will afford all Committeepeople a level playing field in which to exercise their rights and obligations.
The Act also requires that when a Committeeperson resigns, he/she must do so in a notarized writing. Such a reform is especially important given that fraudulent resignations can alter the balance of power on crucial votes and the County parties have not been shy about resorting to such tactics to impose their will.
The most important reform under the proposed Act is that when legislative vacancies are filled by the County parties, a voting machine must be used. Currently, the County Chairperson often endorses a candidate and requests a voice vote to determine the winner. Because of the power of the Chairperson, Committeepeople are reluctant to cast a public vote against the Chairperson’s choice. A vote by machine will enable Committeepeople to vote their conscience rather than simply be forced to accept the Chairperson’s recommendation.
The Party Democracy Act will help to standardize the operations of the County parties throughout the State and will enable Committeepeople to have the knowledge and freedom so that they are able to honestly and effectively perform their duties. In the process, the openness and transparency of County parties will increase.
Michael M. Shapiro, founder of ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence, New Jersey. He currently serves as the Editor of The Alternative Press, www.thealternativepress.com Contact Mike at mike@shaptalk.com
New Jersey’s Fiscal Crisis: Can We Make the Necessary Sacrifices?
By Salvatore Pizzuro
New Jerseyans must be willing to make sacrifices in order to overcome a myriad of crises!
As suggested in a previous Hall Institute publication, the Governor has made a serious attempt at securing a fiscally responsible government for New Jersey. This mission involves combining a serious, unbending struggle to generate new dollars with the need to pay strict adherence to appropriate ethical practices.
On Tuesday, January 8, 2008, the State Legislature was alerted to the Governor’s plan. While still recovering from the hash reality of a new School Funding Formula that proved divisive in both the Senate and the Assembly, New Jersey’s lawmakers were suddenly subjected to an executive plan to generate revenue that will prove to be equally contentious.
Nevertheless, New Jersey is encumbered by unprecedented State debt, with no true definitive plan to pay for it. Raising tolls on major highways is only the beginning of the many sacrifices that New Jerseyans will be asked to make.
But, what is the alternative?
Certainly, those sacrifices will be used to solve the problems that were created by irresponsible spending by the State Legislature. The average New Jerseyan is faced with unprecedented property taxes, old and dilapidated school buildings that the now deceased School Construction Authority could not correct, a declining economy, public graft and corruption, health insurance that they cannot afford, and now the doubling of tolls every few years, beginning in 2010.
However, once again, we must ask what alternative do we have?
The Governor has placed his political future on the line in order to return New Jersey to solvency. Obviously, a return to responsible government will not be easy, and will not be achieved with one term. Jon Corzine has placed the prospect of a second term in jeopardy. The Governor’s solutions will require a reasonable amount of time in order to be successful. Yet, we New Jerseyans face mind-boggling problems along with him.
No true measure appears to suggest that property taxes will be lowered in the near future. In fact, it is doubtful that home owners will see another rebate check this year. The atmosphere is ripe for a voter revolt, similar to the one that Jim Florio faced in the early 90’s. Yet, what solution do we New Jerseyans have, other than to make sacrifices in order to ensure our State’s future solvency?
As was also suggested in a previous Hall Institute publication, Jon Corzine took office with challenges greater than those that were faced by any previous Governor in our State’s recent history. He cannot solve them alone. Corzine needs a responsible State Legislature that is willing to serve New Jersey by prioritizing public service over their political careers. Similarly, all New Jersyans must be prepared to make sacrifices in order to solve the State’s fiscal woes.
The next budget may require anywhere from two to three billion dollars in cuts. Such cuts will undoubtedly affect public services. Members of the State Legislature will claim that they are free of responsibility for creating such fiscal woes. However, those same legislators will continue to pursue personal agendas in favor of special interests.
The Governor must work with entrenched public officials from both parties in order to be successful. Jon Corzine cannot create a new political system. He must work within the existing system, which includes recalcitrant legislators and other public officials. The public at large is left with the choice of working with Jon Corzine or using him as a scapegoat for problems that began long before he was elected to the State House.
Certainly, the Governor cannot do it alone. His success depends on the willingness of average citizens to make the necessary sacrifices. Of course, this very concept is unfair to all New Jerseyans. Nevertheless, New Jersey’s survival is dependent upon the public’s willingness to make such sacrifices.
New Jerseyans must be willing to make sacrifices in order to overcome a myriad of crises!
As suggested in a previous Hall Institute publication, the Governor has made a serious attempt at securing a fiscally responsible government for New Jersey. This mission involves combining a serious, unbending struggle to generate new dollars with the need to pay strict adherence to appropriate ethical practices.
On Tuesday, January 8, 2008, the State Legislature was alerted to the Governor’s plan. While still recovering from the hash reality of a new School Funding Formula that proved divisive in both the Senate and the Assembly, New Jersey’s lawmakers were suddenly subjected to an executive plan to generate revenue that will prove to be equally contentious.
Nevertheless, New Jersey is encumbered by unprecedented State debt, with no true definitive plan to pay for it. Raising tolls on major highways is only the beginning of the many sacrifices that New Jerseyans will be asked to make.
But, what is the alternative?
Certainly, those sacrifices will be used to solve the problems that were created by irresponsible spending by the State Legislature. The average New Jerseyan is faced with unprecedented property taxes, old and dilapidated school buildings that the now deceased School Construction Authority could not correct, a declining economy, public graft and corruption, health insurance that they cannot afford, and now the doubling of tolls every few years, beginning in 2010.
However, once again, we must ask what alternative do we have?
The Governor has placed his political future on the line in order to return New Jersey to solvency. Obviously, a return to responsible government will not be easy, and will not be achieved with one term. Jon Corzine has placed the prospect of a second term in jeopardy. The Governor’s solutions will require a reasonable amount of time in order to be successful. Yet, we New Jerseyans face mind-boggling problems along with him.
No true measure appears to suggest that property taxes will be lowered in the near future. In fact, it is doubtful that home owners will see another rebate check this year. The atmosphere is ripe for a voter revolt, similar to the one that Jim Florio faced in the early 90’s. Yet, what solution do we New Jerseyans have, other than to make sacrifices in order to ensure our State’s future solvency?
As was also suggested in a previous Hall Institute publication, Jon Corzine took office with challenges greater than those that were faced by any previous Governor in our State’s recent history. He cannot solve them alone. Corzine needs a responsible State Legislature that is willing to serve New Jersey by prioritizing public service over their political careers. Similarly, all New Jersyans must be prepared to make sacrifices in order to solve the State’s fiscal woes.
The next budget may require anywhere from two to three billion dollars in cuts. Such cuts will undoubtedly affect public services. Members of the State Legislature will claim that they are free of responsibility for creating such fiscal woes. However, those same legislators will continue to pursue personal agendas in favor of special interests.
The Governor must work with entrenched public officials from both parties in order to be successful. Jon Corzine cannot create a new political system. He must work within the existing system, which includes recalcitrant legislators and other public officials. The public at large is left with the choice of working with Jon Corzine or using him as a scapegoat for problems that began long before he was elected to the State House.
Certainly, the Governor cannot do it alone. His success depends on the willingness of average citizens to make the necessary sacrifices. Of course, this very concept is unfair to all New Jerseyans. Nevertheless, New Jersey’s survival is dependent upon the public’s willingness to make such sacrifices.
A Report to Governor Corzine Regarding the State of American Indian People in New Jersey
BY: THE NEW JERSEY COMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
The status of Native American people is often overlooked in this state and nationwide as many non-native people consider Native Americans to be a vanished people. Many Native American people share a proud and often troubled heritage and to be regarded as vanished or not really Native American is for some tantamount to being regarded as no one in particular.
The dependence on governmental means for the purpose of authenticating Native American identity may produce troubling results. As the governmental distinction between authentic and inauthentic often becomes a question of funding, it is in the institution’s best interest to deny the authenticity of a Native American community. Furthermore, such unreasonable distinctions make identity exclusive and unnatural— and often a matter of paper work or blood quantum more than history, community, and heritage. Native American people who share community and cultural memory, without federal recognition, may feel disoriented without an identity of their own in the larger crowd of American diversity.
The State of New Jersey, among others, has recognized the status of federally unrecognized tribes; however, as the report below suggests, this recognition may be somewhat nominal and perhaps does not accord to Native American people the rights to which they are entitled. In a sense, the distinction serves only to emphasize difference on the one hand, while inviting discrimination for that difference on the other.
Governor Corzine has recently requested a committee be formed and a report prepared which better represents the problems faced daily by Native American people in the State of New Jersey. The report is a very important document in light of similar situations of poverty and discrimination throughout the Garden State. This report may not only speak to the problems of Native American communities but to other communities of people who are proud of their identities and culture but, for that, suffer discrimination and neglect.
The executive summary and link to the full report are posted below.
__________________________________________________
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On August 4, 2006, Governor Jon S. Corzine signed Executive Order 24, which established the New Jersey Committee on Native American Community Affairs (hereafter referred to as “the Committee”). The panel was charged with the tasks of evaluating the social and economic conditions of the state’s Native American communities, focusing on issues such as civil rights, education, environmental protection, employment, fair housing, health care, and infrastructure.
The Committee engaged in extensive information gathering, including in-depth meetings and site visits with Native Americans in New Jersey, outreach to individual State agencies, public hearings, contact with other states regarding policies and programs for their indigenous Native Americans, meetings with local officials and business leaders, a review of books, reports, legislative history, and other relevant literature on Native Americans, and interactions with the New Jersey Commission on Native American Affairs (the Commission). This outreach by the Committee identified and further refined the important areas of concern for Native Americans residing in the state.
A significant and often underestimated number of Native Americans reside in New Jersey. These individuals have a long and storied history of contributions to the culture and quality of life enjoyed by all residents of the state. However, Native-American residents of New Jersey have also experienced notable hardships over the years, ranging from benign neglect by the State to significant and direct threats to their physical and economic well being due to lack of timely and definitive actions by the State and other governmental entities. This report details these hardships, describes the Committee’s findings as to the scope and severity of the problems, and provides a set of recommendations for consideration by the Governor and State Legislature to address these concerns and to return the state’s Native Americans to the honored position within our society suggested by their legacy.
Link to the full report
The status of Native American people is often overlooked in this state and nationwide as many non-native people consider Native Americans to be a vanished people. Many Native American people share a proud and often troubled heritage and to be regarded as vanished or not really Native American is for some tantamount to being regarded as no one in particular.
The dependence on governmental means for the purpose of authenticating Native American identity may produce troubling results. As the governmental distinction between authentic and inauthentic often becomes a question of funding, it is in the institution’s best interest to deny the authenticity of a Native American community. Furthermore, such unreasonable distinctions make identity exclusive and unnatural— and often a matter of paper work or blood quantum more than history, community, and heritage. Native American people who share community and cultural memory, without federal recognition, may feel disoriented without an identity of their own in the larger crowd of American diversity.
The State of New Jersey, among others, has recognized the status of federally unrecognized tribes; however, as the report below suggests, this recognition may be somewhat nominal and perhaps does not accord to Native American people the rights to which they are entitled. In a sense, the distinction serves only to emphasize difference on the one hand, while inviting discrimination for that difference on the other.
Governor Corzine has recently requested a committee be formed and a report prepared which better represents the problems faced daily by Native American people in the State of New Jersey. The report is a very important document in light of similar situations of poverty and discrimination throughout the Garden State. This report may not only speak to the problems of Native American communities but to other communities of people who are proud of their identities and culture but, for that, suffer discrimination and neglect.
The executive summary and link to the full report are posted below.
__________________________________________________
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On August 4, 2006, Governor Jon S. Corzine signed Executive Order 24, which established the New Jersey Committee on Native American Community Affairs (hereafter referred to as “the Committee”). The panel was charged with the tasks of evaluating the social and economic conditions of the state’s Native American communities, focusing on issues such as civil rights, education, environmental protection, employment, fair housing, health care, and infrastructure.
The Committee engaged in extensive information gathering, including in-depth meetings and site visits with Native Americans in New Jersey, outreach to individual State agencies, public hearings, contact with other states regarding policies and programs for their indigenous Native Americans, meetings with local officials and business leaders, a review of books, reports, legislative history, and other relevant literature on Native Americans, and interactions with the New Jersey Commission on Native American Affairs (the Commission). This outreach by the Committee identified and further refined the important areas of concern for Native Americans residing in the state.
A significant and often underestimated number of Native Americans reside in New Jersey. These individuals have a long and storied history of contributions to the culture and quality of life enjoyed by all residents of the state. However, Native-American residents of New Jersey have also experienced notable hardships over the years, ranging from benign neglect by the State to significant and direct threats to their physical and economic well being due to lack of timely and definitive actions by the State and other governmental entities. This report details these hardships, describes the Committee’s findings as to the scope and severity of the problems, and provides a set of recommendations for consideration by the Governor and State Legislature to address these concerns and to return the state’s Native Americans to the honored position within our society suggested by their legacy.
Link to the full report
A Focus on Policy Will Win
BY: HANK BUTEHORN
Republicans and many conservatives are so worried and fearful about losing the presidential election next year they are not focusing on what is necessary to win the election. However, it is exactly that mindset, and decisions based upon that worry and lack of focus, that will lead to the result they fear.
What do I mean by the first sentence? Well, many primary voters are basing their support for a candidate primarily upon the perception that that candidate has the best chance to beat the Democrat challenger in the general election. The voters are basing their decision on “politics” and not “policy.”
This is unfortunate because politics can change in a heartbeat; basing support on politics, and a hoped for result, can fall apart in that same amount of time. And let us not forget, those candidates whose campaign is based on politics without principled policy will change with the politics as quickly as the politics change.
No one can say what will happen in 11 months, and no current poll can predict what will happen over that time; the only poll that counts is election day. However, the best policy is the best politics and will win with the American people.
At the end of the day, those who are supporting candidates who lack consistent principled policy - or giving candidates attention and credibility - primarily because they are perceived as likely victors against a Democrat might be doing a disservice to themselves, conservatism, and the Republican party.
Contrary to politics, policy - and the principles upon which the best policy is based - remains constant. The best policy - a consistent conservative policy upon conservative principles - is that which will win next November. Therefore, the candidate who has put forth specific plans based upon those policies, and has the most consistent history of support for same, and will win; Republicans (especially conservatives) should be basing their decisions upon which candidate fits that mold.
The most recent Republican debate exemplifies why policy, and not politics, should be the basis of support …. and is evidence that the best policy - the most consistent conservative - will always prevail.
Frank Luntz, the communications expert who performs focus groups for Fox News Channel and has outlined - based upon those groups and his “instant Response dial sessions” - what Republican voters are looking for from their candidate and the answers that elicit the best responses, said the candidate who stood out at the debate was Fred Thompson.
But, most still turn a blind eye to that which is staring them in the face and continue their prior course. They maintain focus on front runners who are perceived to have the best chance of winning a general election despite the inability of those candidates to discuss specific substance or policy.
The debate highlighted the difficulties some candidates (such as Romney and Rudy) encounter due to their inconsistent record and principles, lack of conservative record and principles, and their failure to outline specific policy proposals to address the issues of today. Those candidates are easily forced into defensive positions to explain prior actions such as to prevent their ability to talk about future goals and plans; this will only be worse in a general election and make it more difficult for Republicans to win.
The back and forth between Mitt and Rudy is one example in this regard; they were boxed into defensive and accusatory positions that sidetracked discussion about substantive solutions. This will be even worse in a general election.
Moreover, a Rudy candidacy takes abortion, illegal immigration (one of the two most important issues of 2008, and the most important to Republicans), and ethics off the table because of his background and record; Romney’s history and record makes those issues more difficult to champion. This will make the Republican chances in a general election more difficult.
When politics is placed above policy to the extent it has in this primary it results in a candidate who lacks the crucial substantive distinction on policy that is necessary to win come November; it will result in a candidate who has to defend prior transgressions and - especially where there is a lack of substance - prevent the discussion voters want to hear about ….. the future that candidate will lead towards, and how their plans are different from the opponents, and how their plans will get us there.
This feeds right into the Democrats’ hands because they lack any substance the people want and they hope to keep the debate as far away from conservative policy as possible. Democrats will define the debate while the Republican is busy defending his past and/or lacks the specific conservative substance for our future. And, worse yet, it gives false credibility to liberal argument that there is no support for conservative solutions.
Thompson, in contrast, stood firm on his conservative principles and consistent conservative record, and outlined various detailed policy plans to lead America into the future along those lines. He pointed to his detailed and broad reaching policy positions, and exhibited all that which the focus group participants thought others did not. His credentials prevent any claims of “flip-flopping” to prevent Democrat rhetoric that will detract focus from the issues and policy positions to negative attacks and need to defend records. As pointed out by the Luntz observations, consistent conservative policy - as expressed by Thompson - will win.
Yet, despite all of this the main stream media - and some talking heads and commentators who are purportedly conservatives - continue to keep attention away from Thompson; they continue to focus on Rudy and Romney based upon the perception they are best suited to match against the Democrats.
While Republicans decry the debate format, the questions and questioners, or CNN’s agenda, they are hindering themselves by failing to discuss the candidate - Fred Thompson - who did so well despite those objections.
To ensure their victory Republicans must put forth a candidate, like Thompson, who has laid out specific policy plans based upon conservative principles, has the consistent conservative record to keep the focus on those plans for the future, and can provide a contrast to the Democrat agenda on ALL the most important issues.
Unless Republicans and conservatives start focusing on policy rather than the politics, Democrats could walk into the White House in January 2009. As always, the best policy makes the best politics.
Republicans and many conservatives are so worried and fearful about losing the presidential election next year they are not focusing on what is necessary to win the election. However, it is exactly that mindset, and decisions based upon that worry and lack of focus, that will lead to the result they fear.
What do I mean by the first sentence? Well, many primary voters are basing their support for a candidate primarily upon the perception that that candidate has the best chance to beat the Democrat challenger in the general election. The voters are basing their decision on “politics” and not “policy.”
This is unfortunate because politics can change in a heartbeat; basing support on politics, and a hoped for result, can fall apart in that same amount of time. And let us not forget, those candidates whose campaign is based on politics without principled policy will change with the politics as quickly as the politics change.
No one can say what will happen in 11 months, and no current poll can predict what will happen over that time; the only poll that counts is election day. However, the best policy is the best politics and will win with the American people.
At the end of the day, those who are supporting candidates who lack consistent principled policy - or giving candidates attention and credibility - primarily because they are perceived as likely victors against a Democrat might be doing a disservice to themselves, conservatism, and the Republican party.
Contrary to politics, policy - and the principles upon which the best policy is based - remains constant. The best policy - a consistent conservative policy upon conservative principles - is that which will win next November. Therefore, the candidate who has put forth specific plans based upon those policies, and has the most consistent history of support for same, and will win; Republicans (especially conservatives) should be basing their decisions upon which candidate fits that mold.
The most recent Republican debate exemplifies why policy, and not politics, should be the basis of support …. and is evidence that the best policy - the most consistent conservative - will always prevail.
Frank Luntz, the communications expert who performs focus groups for Fox News Channel and has outlined - based upon those groups and his “instant Response dial sessions” - what Republican voters are looking for from their candidate and the answers that elicit the best responses, said the candidate who stood out at the debate was Fred Thompson.
But, most still turn a blind eye to that which is staring them in the face and continue their prior course. They maintain focus on front runners who are perceived to have the best chance of winning a general election despite the inability of those candidates to discuss specific substance or policy.
The debate highlighted the difficulties some candidates (such as Romney and Rudy) encounter due to their inconsistent record and principles, lack of conservative record and principles, and their failure to outline specific policy proposals to address the issues of today. Those candidates are easily forced into defensive positions to explain prior actions such as to prevent their ability to talk about future goals and plans; this will only be worse in a general election and make it more difficult for Republicans to win.
The back and forth between Mitt and Rudy is one example in this regard; they were boxed into defensive and accusatory positions that sidetracked discussion about substantive solutions. This will be even worse in a general election.
Moreover, a Rudy candidacy takes abortion, illegal immigration (one of the two most important issues of 2008, and the most important to Republicans), and ethics off the table because of his background and record; Romney’s history and record makes those issues more difficult to champion. This will make the Republican chances in a general election more difficult.
When politics is placed above policy to the extent it has in this primary it results in a candidate who lacks the crucial substantive distinction on policy that is necessary to win come November; it will result in a candidate who has to defend prior transgressions and - especially where there is a lack of substance - prevent the discussion voters want to hear about ….. the future that candidate will lead towards, and how their plans are different from the opponents, and how their plans will get us there.
This feeds right into the Democrats’ hands because they lack any substance the people want and they hope to keep the debate as far away from conservative policy as possible. Democrats will define the debate while the Republican is busy defending his past and/or lacks the specific conservative substance for our future. And, worse yet, it gives false credibility to liberal argument that there is no support for conservative solutions.
Thompson, in contrast, stood firm on his conservative principles and consistent conservative record, and outlined various detailed policy plans to lead America into the future along those lines. He pointed to his detailed and broad reaching policy positions, and exhibited all that which the focus group participants thought others did not. His credentials prevent any claims of “flip-flopping” to prevent Democrat rhetoric that will detract focus from the issues and policy positions to negative attacks and need to defend records. As pointed out by the Luntz observations, consistent conservative policy - as expressed by Thompson - will win.
Yet, despite all of this the main stream media - and some talking heads and commentators who are purportedly conservatives - continue to keep attention away from Thompson; they continue to focus on Rudy and Romney based upon the perception they are best suited to match against the Democrats.
While Republicans decry the debate format, the questions and questioners, or CNN’s agenda, they are hindering themselves by failing to discuss the candidate - Fred Thompson - who did so well despite those objections.
To ensure their victory Republicans must put forth a candidate, like Thompson, who has laid out specific policy plans based upon conservative principles, has the consistent conservative record to keep the focus on those plans for the future, and can provide a contrast to the Democrat agenda on ALL the most important issues.
Unless Republicans and conservatives start focusing on policy rather than the politics, Democrats could walk into the White House in January 2009. As always, the best policy makes the best politics.
New Year's Resolutions For Garden State Government
BY: MICHAEL M. SHAPIRO
It’s the time of the year when we reflect on the past year and make our resolutions for the new one. Because we can never be sure that our elected officials do reflect on the past and vow to make changes in the New Year, here are some resolutions that our representatives in Garden State government would do well to make and keep.
As New Jersey’s deficit skyrockets, the first resolution for the New Year should be to develop a fiscally responsible budget that cuts wasteful spending even if it means that the politicians will not be able to bring as much “pork-barrel” spending to their districts. State programs should be aggressively audited to root out waste, fraud and abuse. All unnecessary paid political appointees should be dismissed. All last-minute budget appropriations should be refused.
The second resolution should be to pass meaningful ethics reform in New Jersey. “Pay to Play” reform needs to be enacted at every level of government throughout the State. In addition, double-dipping must be banned at every level of government and all who are currently double-dipping should be given until the end of 2008 to eliminate their additional public jobs or fall under the double-dipping reform suggested. Conflict of interest laws must be strengthened to prevent elected officials from steering public work to their private businesses. Finally, campaign finance reform should be enacted which enables qualified citizens, who believe public office is a public trust, to run. This reform would level the playing field for such candidates so that they can compete with incumbents who are funded by special interests.
A third and final resolution for the New Year would be for our elected officials to be upfront and honest with our citizens about the problems our State faces and have an open dialogue regarding how we can best solve them. If information was not kept from the public and instead was disseminated in a straight-forward and honest manner, our citizens would respond in kind. It is time for our elected officials to treat us like the savvy consumers we are rather than politicking and pandering to insulate themselves from losing re-election.
It is rather uncommon to tell others your New Year’s wishes as it is said that those who do will not see their wishes come true. Hopefully that is an old-wive’s tale.
Michael M. Shapiro, founder of ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence, New Jersey. He currently serves as the Editor of The Alternative Press, www.thealternativepress.com. Contact Mike at mike@shaptalk.com.
It’s the time of the year when we reflect on the past year and make our resolutions for the new one. Because we can never be sure that our elected officials do reflect on the past and vow to make changes in the New Year, here are some resolutions that our representatives in Garden State government would do well to make and keep.
As New Jersey’s deficit skyrockets, the first resolution for the New Year should be to develop a fiscally responsible budget that cuts wasteful spending even if it means that the politicians will not be able to bring as much “pork-barrel” spending to their districts. State programs should be aggressively audited to root out waste, fraud and abuse. All unnecessary paid political appointees should be dismissed. All last-minute budget appropriations should be refused.
The second resolution should be to pass meaningful ethics reform in New Jersey. “Pay to Play” reform needs to be enacted at every level of government throughout the State. In addition, double-dipping must be banned at every level of government and all who are currently double-dipping should be given until the end of 2008 to eliminate their additional public jobs or fall under the double-dipping reform suggested. Conflict of interest laws must be strengthened to prevent elected officials from steering public work to their private businesses. Finally, campaign finance reform should be enacted which enables qualified citizens, who believe public office is a public trust, to run. This reform would level the playing field for such candidates so that they can compete with incumbents who are funded by special interests.
A third and final resolution for the New Year would be for our elected officials to be upfront and honest with our citizens about the problems our State faces and have an open dialogue regarding how we can best solve them. If information was not kept from the public and instead was disseminated in a straight-forward and honest manner, our citizens would respond in kind. It is time for our elected officials to treat us like the savvy consumers we are rather than politicking and pandering to insulate themselves from losing re-election.
It is rather uncommon to tell others your New Year’s wishes as it is said that those who do will not see their wishes come true. Hopefully that is an old-wive’s tale.
Michael M. Shapiro, founder of ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence, New Jersey. He currently serves as the Editor of The Alternative Press, www.thealternativepress.com. Contact Mike at mike@shaptalk.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
