Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less! Sign the petition!!!

American Solutions has established a petition to encourage congress to stop playing games with energy exploration and start drilling right here in the United States. The country is dependent on foreign sources of oil and it is high time we went back to utilizing the resources we have in our own country and stop spending money to prop up corrupt foreign regimes.

From the site as of this writing:

We, therefore, the undersigned citizens of the United States, petition the U.S. Congress to act immediately to lower gasoline prices by authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries.

We currently have 185,982 signatures.

What have you got to lose except your wallet if we do nothing. Go to the site here and sign the petition.

---

What is wrong with the water at Trinity Church in Chicago?

Fox news reports the newest strange goings on in Chicago at Obama's church:

Another Chicago minister is causing headaches for Barack Obama after he told the Democratic candidate’s church congregation Sunday that Hillary Clinton felt entitled to the presidency because she’s white.

The scary part is that this priest, Father Michael Pflegar sounded more like Rev Jeremiah Wright than any priest I have ever heard or known as a member of the Catholic church. Known as "Chicago's Renegade Priest", it is interesting that his wikipedia entry has been updated to reflect that Obama is unhappy:

On May 29, 2008, Pfleger was rebuked by presidential candidate Barack Obama for comments he delivered at a sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ. Pfleger had mocked Hillary Clinton, Obama's opponent for the Democratic Party nomination, saying, "I really believe that she just always thought, this is mine... Then out of nowhere came, 'Hey, I'm Barack Obama' and she said, 'Oh, damn. Where did you come from? I'm white. I'm entitled. There's a black man stealing my show.'" In response, Obama said he was "deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric". Pfleger later apologized in a statement released by Saint Sabina: "I regret the words I chose Sunday. These words are inconsistent with Sen. Obama's life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Sen. Clinton or anyone else who saw them."

Maybe the real scandal is that while Obama is willing to throw the white guy in his church under the bus, he has a problem when the person who says similar things like Reverend Wright is his pastor for 30 years. Hmmmm.

Read the Fox news article here.

---

Roberts at it again! Suburbs beware!!!!!

I just read one of the best descriptions of the property tax mess summarized in one article. In the article "A Property Tax Disaster", Michael Patrick Carroll (on Politicker.com)discussed the looming danger non-city taxpayers face:

Every legislator claims to favor property tax relief, but by their actions shall you know them. The present majority gave us the fraudulent "millionaires’ tax", rebates with borrowed money, etc. But none of these rookie efforts compares with the threat posed by A-500.

Therein, Speaker Roberts and a cadre of urban legislators draw a bead on suburban taxpayers. Should this proposal pass – and be coupled with even more coercive COAH regulations – it could mean property tax increases in the hundreds of millions, of billions, of dollars.

Lest we feel that this article is overstating the case, it clearly lays out the rationale for believing that we may be close to an acceleration of the disaster already propagated upon taxpayers in the past 6 years. The setup is COAH dictating to a local district that they need more low income housing to the tune of 1,000 units (which would be paired with 4,000 market rate units).

5,000 units; let’s assume 1 kid per unit = 5,000 new students. That’s, what, 10 new schools? Not being an Abbott district, the entire cost of that construction would fall on the shoulders of the existing taxpayers. Let’s be generous and assume that each unit pays $7,000 in annual property taxes. Bridgewater presently spends (roughly) $12,200 per kid, which means that present taxpayers will see their taxes increase by $26 million (5000 new kids at $5,200 deficit each), not including the costs of school construction.

But wait, there’s more. If the Abbott folks are correct – students from poor families need spending of roughly $25,000 per year to compensate for their poverty – that makes the deficit for 1000 of those kids roughly $18000 per annum. Oh, and the state contributes a princely 8% of the costs of educating a child in Bridgewater.

This development, then, would be an unmitigated property tax disaster for the local residents.

This entire situation as some level starts to make you sad. As the gas situation gets worse, my commuting cost continue to skyrocket and even food costs are going out of site, the luxury of living in the State of New Jersey is becoming less and less affordable. And the fact that the urban districts in this state will continue to look at people like me and those that read this blog as a pack of rubes ripe for the fleecing. Speaker Roberts is frankly just chief grafter in this pack. Carroll has some ideas in this regard:

Of course, it doesn’t have to be this way. We can address the housing problem by addressing the school funding problem: give each child an equal, state funded voucher.

If each kid came with a voucher, municipal opposition to housing construction would abate, because they’d be assets, not liabilities. A fair number of them would attend private schools, making their parents’ property tax payments pure municipal profit. And those who attend public schools would, now, pay their own way. The need for tens of billions of new construction spending on Abbott district schools would vanish. The incentive – and the ability – for Newark or Keansburg to lavish excessive salaries or reward employees with sweetheart deals would evaporate.

In short, kids, their parents, and the property taxpayers would benefit massively. Only those with a financial stake in the present, hugely expensive and horribly unfair system would suffer.

The funny thing here is that once the regular citizens of this state realize what is going on, it will be far too late. "Leaders" like Lautenberg, Menendez, Roberts and Kean Jr are all vested in a system that doesn't serve the state . And only after New Jersey starts to resemble Michigan will they get it. The productive people in this state are leaving in the 10's of thousands every year. One day, the teachers union may wake up and realize that not only isn't there a golden egg, the goose left long ago.

Read this excellent article here.

---

Taxation and 'post partisan' Politics

So much has been said about the political battles on the Democrat side of the ledger this year. While we have weighed in on various topics over the past few months as wide-eyed observers, it has frankly been really interesting and almost fun to see a party who plays racial games come to grips with it when played from within. Just as the party who has traded on sexist stereotypes has had to come to grips with the reality of their female candidate meeting another of their famed protected class, a black candidate.

From my seat, I could care less what color either of these candidates is nor their gender. But what really intrigues me is the characteriization going on within their own voters over these candidates. For example, because you are supposed to believe per the media the Barack Obama is the savior of the party, union voters who have long been for Hillary are now racist because there happens to be more of them who are white and middle class.


One need no more proof of this silliness then to follow the actions of DNC chair Dean. Every time his party in conjunction with the media acts sexist or racist, Dean blames a Republican. While that may work in the old world of no Iraq war, it won't cut it in this new post partisan world where everyone is looking at things in a new light. If you think Hillary is a racist because she is fighting to win a nomination that she thinks she still has a shot at(she is not by the way and I don't support her), you are wrong.


The problem here is that for far too long, the general media outlook is far too pedestrian for real people. Obama may be unattractive to many voters due to lack of experience, a naive world view or a set of policy positions that are just plain wrong. That doesn't make Hillary's supporters evil. It just makes them honest.

Tonight I watched an interview with Harry Reid on Fox where he lamented on how John McCain went astray, Apparently, he did it because he didn't sign on to Reid's partisan view of the world. That now makes him Bush-2 or 3. But that is far too simple minded. While I am not a McCain supporter(as I mentioned before I voted Romney for NJ), I find the concept of McCain as Bush as drivel.

The net is that any of these candidates can and should stand on their own merits. Hillary is a formidible candidate and still very much in play. Obama is the front runner and has real positions and ideas. And McCain is his own man. They all have their positives and negatives. Let's let them all play out.

---

Obama's wife...and McCain's

Barack Obama got mad yesterday because the Tennessee Republican party created a You-Tube ad that quoted her verbatim about her unhappiness as an American for so many years. From TheAge.com.au:

The first-term Illinois senator today blasted Republicans in Tennessee for an ad attacking his wife, Michelle, for comments some interpreted as unpatriotic. He called the criticism "low-class".

That is so much better than this criticism of Cindy McCain from Howard Dean from Boston.com:

"What is John McCain trying to hide?" Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said in a statement. "Throughout this campaign, he has acted like his own calls for openness and accountability apply to everyone but himself. Now he thinks he can bring that same double standard to the White House."

And her defense of herself:

Cindy McCain made crystal clear today that she has no plans to release her tax returns -- now while her husband is the presumptive Republican nominee, or later if she becomes first lady.

"This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate," she said in an interview aired on NBC's "Today" show.

The reality of both of these things is clear. If Michelle Obama goes out and stumps for her husband and trashes the country, her comments are fair game. She will be living in the White House as well if her is elected.

Just as Cindy McCain's financials are fair game as well as she will be a resident on Pennsylvania Avenue. What is absolutely silly is Obama's claim to "Stay away from my wife...that's not fair!". Forget it. Obama's answer to every hard question is turning into "not fair, I am not going to stoop to that level. I am about hope".

Grow up Senator. You want to trash other people and think you won't get it back. It doesn't work that way. You can't give a pretty speech and then claim that any examination of its content is out of bounds. You once compared yourself to Lincoln (a bit presumptious I thought at the time but so be it). Do you think that Lincoln cried foul during the Lincoln/Douglas debates?

---

NJ Assembly renamed the Politburo! School budget elections eliminated!!!!

Commissar John Roberts has lead the Assembly to eliminate school budget elections. From Newsday:

"I know one thing for sure, and that is that our current system that elects school board members is a system that's broken and needs to be fixed," said Roberts, D-Camden.

Well guess what Mr Roberts? What the citizens of this state know is that school board elections are the only actual vestige of control any of us have over out of control spending and corrupt politicians. The citizens didn't ask for this change. So maybe the request came from somewhere else. For example, this article from the New York Times during the budget battles in July 2006:

Many others say — although rarely for attribution — that the real chess match here is between Mr. Corzine and the Camden County organization, personified by Mr. Roberts and by George E. Norcross III, one of the party's most formidable power brokers.

Mr. Norcross, a former Camden County Democratic party chairman, is not only a political ally and former business partner of Mr. Roberts, but the patron of many other South Jersey Democrats. Nor does his influence end there, since the Camden County organization sends money to Democratic candidates all over the state.

Of course Mr Roberts has always taken his marching orders from Norcross in matters not in the interests of taxpayers. How about the other organization that has always been against school budget elections, the New Jersey Education Association(from Newsday):

The state's largest teachers union, the New Jersey Education Association, and school boards support eliminating votes on budgets but oppose moving school board elections to November.

It is bad enough that the voters in this state are served up only a slate of power broker controlled candidates. These power brokers and their puppets in the legislature have circumvented the will of the voters at every turn. The state constitution says that you can't borrow without voter approval? Then why have governors and the legislature routinely increased borrowing for 12 years?

This law was suggested by a single voter in this state. This action was because New Jersey Voters keep voting down ever increasing school budgets. But alas, the newly created People's Republic of New Jersey will not need elections any more soon. We can just ask the unelected Central Committee how things should be run.

---

Lautenberg is a liar!

Here's a funny one. I have no dog in this hunt but I just saw Senator Frank Lautenberg's add trashing his opponent Rob Andrews over the Bush tax cut. Just for the record, Democrats should stop being so naive and stupid in this state about who and what they are. The average wage in our state (one of if not the highest in the nation depending on what study you read) put most NJ earners into the 'rich' category that the press so despises.. And Frank Lautenberg knows this.

But he is willing to trash a colleague who dares challenging him because he votes in the best interest of the voters in NJ. I don't agree with a lot of what Mike Andrews agrees with but his fiscal and tax policy votes are not bad. Lautenberg's are because like Jon Corzine, he is a rich guy who has frankly no idea what it is like to raise a family here under the current tax first and ask questions later philosophy of our current Democratic party in NJ.

Frank Lautenberg doesn't give a damn about the average New Jersey taxpayer. Why do I say that? Because of the fact that if he were any kind of leader, he would be pressuring his party to stop spending like drunken sailors and driving earners and businesses from the state and start building an attractive climate for families and small business to thrive. I am not even sure he is alive any more. Given the level of corruption in this state, he may have passed long ago (I know this is tasteless but outside of FL's re-election campaign, no one give a hoot).

He is a throwback who New Jersey voters should literally throw back to his retirement mansion and move on. I could actually vote for Andrews because he seems to understand that Reid and Pelosi are not good for our state when their rhetoric is bad for New Jersey. Lautenberg is not our friend. He is just another rich guy with a conscience problem. He would be better off spending his own money to help the alleged community he blathers on about.

Isn't if funny that Mike Bloomberg in NY, while having a ton of policies I don't agree with puts his personal money where his mouth is when our NJ rich guys like Corzine and Lautenberg continue to feed themselves at the taxpayers expense.

Why can't we get rich guys that aren't parasites in this state?

---

Bush didn't say it in Israel, but Obama did!

I always know when my children do something wrong when I make a simple statement or ask a simple question and get a reflexively defensive response. Apparently, that is true in politics as well. From Bush's speech today to the Knesset in Israel from whitehouse.gov:

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you. (Applause.)

America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. (Applause.)

I have been travelling and missed this happening live earlier today, but this was the response Obama:

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in a statement his aides distributed. "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.

What is really sad is that Obama doth protest too much. Had the President mentioned him by name or any Democrat by name, I would buy this specious argument. But given that a parade of Democrats went howling to the microphones today calling foul (Hey Nancy, maybe he was talking about your meeting with Syria or Carter's with Hamas!), it seems that they are awfully defensive on this topic. Good. If you want to side with terrorists, let them tell the American people why.

Since we can't get the media to make the Democrats in this state come clean on their corruption or their free spending of our money on a daily basis, at least we can report when their shrill whining goes over the top. If you really want the facts, read the entire speech here and judge for yourself.

---

New requirement for spending politicians: I want YOUR permission to spend YOUR money on...

For far too long, our local state and federal politicians have gotten away with language that is really not truthful when dealing with the voters. For example, Governor Corzine last year said the following when suggesting new spending for stem cell research:

“New Jersey continues to forge ahead as a pioneer in stem cell research and discovery,” said Governor Corzine. “This ballot initiative represents a landmark economic investment that will create new jobs and spur new business ventures while bringing the potential of revolutionary life-saving treatments and cures to millions afflicted by some of the most devastating diseases and injuries."

If the governor was truthful he would have said:

We are asking YOU, the voter to write a check for our good idea that we think MIGHT help sick people get better. We will take YOUR check and give it to commercial business enterprises so that they will come here instead of another state and do this. Your initial deposit will only cover startup cost as this is going to cost a lot of money over time that YOU will have to pay as our state government doesn't make any money on its own. AS a matter of fact, because we routinely borrow money without asking YOU (even though the state constitution says we can't), we need additional money from YOU to pay interest. In addition, YOU should understand that in order to spend YOUR money, we will be giving jobs to other people to work for state government that will make sure that YOUR money will be spend the way WE want it and isn't wasted too much. These state workers will get generous retirement pensions that YOU are not eligible for because YOU earn YOUR money in the private sector even though YOU pay every cent that goes into these plans. These new state workers will get cars because we have suggested placing these stem cell labratories all over the state to reward our political friends in various locations. These cars will be paid for by YOU as well as the gas that goes in them.

And just so we are clear, this message is to EVERY PERSON IN OUR STATE! We aren't asking just the rich guys for this, we are asking EVERYONE. You will write us a check and even if we rebate some back to YOU, it will be a tiny fraction of what YOU paid us. Isn't that a great idea? Won't YOU support us?

Why don't politicians speak like this? You know why. Because not one of these wonderful programs would every be approved. So next time you hear Hillary speak about Universal Healthcare, Obama speak about his Green Energy Sector or John McCain about Amnesty for Illegal Aliens, translate the word investment to 'you will write a check to pay for it'. And every time a politician tells you that 'someone else' is paying the bill, replace those words with 'I am a liar who is telling you this so you are fooled into believing that someone else is paying the bill even though it is really you'.

---

Why Business is Fleeing the State

It's like watching a car wreck in slow motion.

Yep. And he (Paul Mulshine) gives a very nice summary of how the wheels have been coming off.

---

A Water Tax? What's next, a tax on air?

I have a picture in my head of the room where New Jersey Senators deliberate. Instead of wood paneling I see balloons and lots of sparkling streamers. Instead of suits I see red noses and floppy shoes. The senators are loaded with whoopee cushions, buzzer rings and squirting flowers.

Overheard during today's debate:

We could raise tolls 1,000 percent!

Bah How about 10,000 percent!!!! (to raucous laughter)

I got a better one...we could tax greasy food to penalize the oil companies!

Here Here!!! (loud applause)

How about a tax on how many blades of grass in your lawn! (out of control laughter)

That will really stick it to the home owning suckers! And we can give a rebate to anyone who doesn't have a yard, grass or any plants. (rolling on the floor)

I got a better one, how about we tax water... (stop it stop it, I can't take it anymore)

From the Associated Press and Forbes 1 hour ago:

A Senate committee on Thursday debated a proposed constitutional amendment that would dedicate $150 million annually be raised from a proposed new water tax to farmland and open space preservation in the nation's most densely populated state.

Voters would decide whether to approve the amendment during the November election, if three-fifths of both legislative houses this year approve sending it to voters.

Sen. Bob Smith said the tax would charge 40 cents per 1,000 gallons of water, equating to $32 per year for the average household.

Maybe when the Barnum and Bailey Circus comes to town this week, we could keep them and load the legislature into the trucks to go to the next location....

---

Hillary and the lunatic fringe

It wasn't too long ago that the nation was riveted to the television watching people evaluate hanging chads and divining voters intent who may have only dented a ballot. This more than anything probably made it impossible for George W Bush to govern in a bipartisan way (as he did in Texas for years). Why? The conspiracy theorist which were fed and watered in Florida never seemed to get over the fact that despite their best efforts at overturning an election, they lost. They lost in the count, they lost in the official recount and they lost when their beloved New York Times recounted again many months later. The only place they had a chance to win was with the Florida Supreme Court which the Supreme Court in Washington snuffed out.



But many of the lunatic fringe continue their mantra of 'selected not elected'. And the Democratic party continues to this day to fan those flames. And along comes this year's primary season. Two large states, Michigan and Florida(again) are in the middle of the discussion regarding the nominating process. The national media would like to change the subject and proceed to the coronation of Barack Obama. But Hillary Clinton (who I absolutely do not support) will not let it go that easily.



Why? Because she knows that with those two states which she won, this race is close to even. And regardless of how that came to be, she knows that there are plenty in the lunatic fringe that can be whipped up in her party to challenge the 'official outcome'. The only problem is that once that genie is out of the bottle it is very hard to put back. I will be the contrarian but Hillary can still win. And the media, the pundits and Obama's team can do very little but watch and continue to fight this out.



Ask yourself why hasn't Obama sealed the deal despite two months of the media declaring him with winner. Hillary can still win. But at what cost? And then what.

---

Obama, North Carolina and moving forward.

Barack Obama just closed the deal in North Carolina likely by a big margin. The attribution for this victory in the media are black voters in the state. I don't really think that this is really the story. While the race polarization of the campaign has been driven by the Clinton campaign, it is clear that Mr Obama needs to make a change in the national discussion.

While I have continued to express concern over Obama's way too liberal policies, he still represents what I believe to be a 'good man' politically. I could have a beer with Barack Obama and could never imagine that with Hillary Clinton. There is something there to build on. But what does he need to do to get back on track with the general electorate?

Number one, he needs to stop seeming so indifferent. He can be a fighter and still not stoop to outrageous partison politics. Second, he needs to speak for himself. His wife can make a speech but her message is frankly more polarizing than helpful. Anbd we won't even get into his preacher or other 'friends'. Third, he needs to stop the pandering on things like NAFTA and take leadership positions that aren't easily impeached by real economic data. Fourth, continue his 'take the fight to the terrorist' message. I don't agree with him but when he was in Philadelphia speaking about it, I could respect his position. And lastly, please stop the 'soak the rich and shower the little guy approach'. While tasty rhetoric everyone knows that it is the same old liberal playbook.

Forget all that. Lead Mr Obama. Don't pander. Don't race bait. Don't allow yourself to be defined by negative people. Just lead. And then the national discussion will really begin!

---

Kudos to NorthJersey.com's Mike Kelly

While I posted earlier today a bit of a rant about our governor, I discovered an article by Mike Kelly writing for The Record. While I didn't see this post before, I agree with everything in it and believe that Mr. Kelly has identified the heart of the problem with Gov. Corzine:

Kelly: Corzine picks wrong political fights
Sunday, May 4, 2008 By MIKE KELLY
RECORD COLUMNIST

Mike Kelly is a Record columnist. Contact him at kellym@northjersey.com.

LIKE HIM OR NOT, no one should doubt that Governor Corzine is tenacious. The man doesn't like to easily give up and toss in the towel.

But a deeper political question now haunts Corzine: Does he know how to pick his fights?

Last week, Corzine and his aides found themselves immersed in discussions of three vastly divergent issues that are close to the governor's political heart: stem cells, highway toll hikes and a possible increase in the gasoline tax.

Why? Why is a governor of a state with a budget crisis even spending more than a minute or two thinking about these matters?

That question is not petty.

With gas prices rising faster than thunderhead clouds on a dog-day afternoon in August and at least two presidential candidates – John McCain and Hillary Clinton – calling for a reduction of the gas tax this summer, why would any politician talk of jacking up the gas tax?

As for stem cells, didn't New Jersey voters reject a massive ballot initiative to fund stem cell research in November?

And, finally, tolls: Corzine's initial plan to increase tolls on the New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway by as much as 800 percent over the next 15 years seemed to have as much appeal as a 20-mile traffic jam at the start of a Memorial Day weekend. In other words, Corzine's scheme was not moving anywhere, despite his admirable yet beleaguered series of town meetings up and down the state to drum up support for it.

What makes Corzine think he can revive a variation of that plan now?
Read the entire article here.

---

Tone Deaf Corzine - It's NJ's unfriendly business climate stupid!

In an article in today's Asbury Park Press, Governor Corzine sings the praises of Nordisk expansion in Princeton:

Gov. Corzine was giddy in praising Novo Nordisk's recent decision to expand its U.S. headquarters in Princeton. He said the health care company's decision "demonstrates the state is an attractive location for innovative companies to grow."

But as usual, the Governor does not have his facts straight. Frankly, it is hard to criticize Corzine anymore because he has proven to be such a fool on so many levels from his elitist posturing on stem cell research and the public's refusal to fund it, his support of paid family leave so his rich children can get money from the state to visit him (by far the worst explanation for signing a bill in NJ history), his toll tax proposal, his absolute refusal to cut anything significant from the budget for fear of angering special interests and his complete disrespect for the taxpayers in the state of New Jersey. But on this one, he has his head somewhere unmentionable (in the sand?):

The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council's recently released 2008 Business Tax Index placed New Jersey dead last of 50 states. The state ranked in the bottom five in personal income and capital gains tax rates and in state and local property taxes.

The adverse impact taxation is having on the state's economic health has been clear for some time. A Rutgers University report released two weeks ago found that New Jersey's private-sector job growth ranked 41st nationally over the past two years.

There is a bill to address these issues that the Democrat controlled legislature will not even debate. Here's hoping that United State Attorney Christopher Christie will indict Corzine and throw him in jail. Eighteen more months of Corzine is too long.

---

NY Times thinks NJ Legislators are timid!

In a silly opinion piece in the New York Times, the time took the position that Governor Corzine is brave, has done nothing to cause the state's current budget problems and his being saddled with a timid legislature:

Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey has thrown in the towel in his four-month effort to persuade the State Legislature to reduce his state’s colossal debt by sharply raising turnpike and parkway tolls. The Legislature, which does not share his sense of urgency, gave him no choice. Despite its merits, the plan had little support from Republicans or the Democrats, who control both legislative houses.

This puff opinion piece is startling in its complete lack of any real information to justify the position the paper is taking. The Times bright idea...raise taxes:

Though the fiscal mess is not of Mr. Corzine’s making, he must come back with an alternative. Our own suggestion is that he reconsider his opposition to raising the state’s gas tax. This may seem counterintuitive with gas prices climbing and politicians everywhere talking about lowering gas taxes, but New Jersey’s levies are among the country’s lowest.

The paper fails to mention that the gas tax is the only piece of taxation that the legislators have failed to raise over the past 10 years. With a constant drumbeat of political bosses serving special interests at the cost of New Jersey taxpayers, residents have driven to a position where they pay the highest overall taxes in the country.

I am actually surprised that this wasn't on the front page. It matches the normal amount of research and bias we have come to expect from the famous newspaper with the collapsing readership. What the paper ignores is that the reason legislators are lukewarm to Corzine's proposals is that he plainly said that he isn't prepared to play scrooge on spending. That tells everyone in government that he isn't serious and won't be left holding the bad when the citizens say enough is enough.

While the Times credits Corzine's 'gumption', they should be calling him on his political cowardice and outright incompetence.

---

A New Thought About Tax-and-Spend

In the article Dennis linked to below, my fellow West Orange resident Maureen Felix said, "I think this country has gone too much in the direction of fast and unhealthy food, and if people are taxed they may terminate that and turn toward more healthy foods."

Note the liberal mindset: taxes aren't a necessary evil used to fund required government programs, they're a mechanism that technocrats use to shape your behavior.

I disagree, of course -- I abhor the idea -- but let's play along.

Junk foods are junk because they don't provide the nutrition that's so essential to good health. Consider the problems associated with them:

• Though it's cheap, convenient, and often considered tasty, junk food tends to displace more nutritious food. In other words, eating fast food causes individuals to get less of the good stuff that they need.
  
• Junk food often contains excess salt, fat, and other nutrients that, though necessary in small quantities, should be kept to a reasonable minimum. Eating fast food causes people to get too much stuff that they don't need.
  
• On an individual level, too much junk food reduces people's physical well-being, leading to unhappiness.
  
• Overall, it also leads to more people being hospitalized for (say) heart disease, leading to higher demand for health care, which leads to higher costs and ties up money that could be more productively used elsewhere (e.g., in providing shelter for the homeless).
  

Now let's consider how taxing junk food might help us as a community.

• It reduces the incentive to replace better foods with junk foods.
  
• It thus reduces the strain on your physical well-being.
  
• That leads to reduced hospitalization, which leads to a better economic situation.
  

Maybe there's something to this idea. If we force people to pay more for things that are unhealthy, they'll be healthier in the long run, and there will be good long-term societal effects.

So let's apply the same thought process to junk spending. It's junk because it doesn't provide the autonomy that's so essential to good fiscal health. Consider the problems associated with it:

• Though politically they're cheap ("it's for the kids"), convenient ("my opponent voted to prevent poor people from getting the help they need"), and often considered tasty (maybe that's why they call it "pork"), junk spending tends to replace more autonomous spending. The government spends the money its way rather than you spending the money your way. In other words, junk spending causes individuals to get less of the good stuff that they personally need.
  
• Junk spending often contains excess administration, bureaucracy, and other organizational constructs that, though necessary in small quantities, should be kept to a reasonable minimum. Junk spending causes people to get too much stuff that they don't need.
  
• On an individual level, too much junk spending reduces people's economic well-being, leading to unhappiness.
  
• Overall, it also leads to more people becoming dependent on taxation-funded programs, leading to higher demand for taxation-funded programs, which leads to higher costs and ties up money that could be more productively used elsewhere (e.g., in providing mortgage payments for the people who actually earned the money in the first place).
  

But if taxing junk food can reduce junk-food-related problems, maybe we should tax junk taxes. Put a one percent tax on the legislative body that introduces non-critical taxes, to be paid for out of their salaries.

• It would reduce the incentive to replace individual spending with junk spending.
  
• It would thus reduce the strain on our economic well-being.
  
• That would lead to reduced dependency on taxation-funded programs, which would lead to a better economic situation.
  

I think it's a great idea! Since I am clearly the most enlightened person around us (hey, I'm trying to think with a liberal mindset right now, so I must know how to spend your money and run your life better than you do), this is something I should impose on everyone around me. By judicial fiat, if I can't get people to agree on it.

I mean, think about it. Things that are really important would still get through, because the politicians would be willing to spend their own money on things that are really critical. I mean, 1% is only $3,500 of the $350K that they wanted to spend on certificates for veterans -- I'm sure those are important enough to make it through.

So, to paraphrase my neighbor, I think this state and country have gone too much in the direction of fast and unhealthy spending decisions, and if legislators are taxed they may terminate that and turn toward more healthy spending habits.

Sign me up.

---