Monday, June 30, 2008

Obama attacks McCain because he got attacked by Obama....Huh?

Yesterday morning Wesley Clarke came out on CBS an attacked John McCain as not worthy of the presidency because he had been shot down in Viet Nam. Even Bob Schieffer thought that it was bizarre that Clarke was attacking McCain on competence when no matter how you look at it, McCain frankly makes Obama look like a child in terms of experience.

But what I think is far more interesting is the Obama "Patriotism" speech today trashing Clarke and acting like he is above the fray. This entire episode was and is staged and McCain doesn't even get it. Score one for the "new politics". Go out and trash the other guy to overshadow your own faults and then blame him. If McCain wasn't so pathetic and unprepared on this I would feel bad for him.

Hmmmm.

Labels:


Sunday, June 29, 2008

Inquirer Special Report: Property-Tax Madness

In Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer, the headline report is on the New Jersey property tax situation and its impact on the citizens of this state. Despite the Inquirers more liberal leanings, they place the blame clearly in the court of the party that has been running the state for the past several years state's ruling party(Democrats):

Nowhere is there a higher average property-tax bill: $6,796 per household, up more than 50 percent in just the last five years.

And that, in a costly nutshell, is why New Jerseyans are some of the angriest taxpayers in America.


The article gets going with this typical story:

Among seniors, the anger is giving way to panic, Tom Yarnall warns. "Are we going to run out of money?" he asked. "Or are we going to run out of heartbeats?"

Yarnall, 76, a retired computer specialist, pays $9,053 in property tax - about one-quarter of his fixed income - on his two-story colonial on Weston Drive in Cherry Hill. That's up from $6,344 in 2002, a 43 percent jump.

"When I retired, I thought I was in good shape," he said. But every year, "I'm taking more and more out of our savings. It will be gone in eight to 10 years."

The article proceeds to document several other stories and are frankly typical from the blog's perspective. Seniors that can no longer afford their homes, long term residents who children will never live in their parents house and municipalities who cannot cope with the cost of running the town.


Some of the reasons they cite as to why we are in such a mess:

New Jersey ranks third among populous states for the number of public employees per capita working for school districts and towns.

With New Jersey's cost of living one of the highest in the country and its labor unions effective, that force of 350,000 is better paid than anywhere but California - on average, $55,000 a year.


The article goes on to discuss many of the issues that we have covered in the past her at NJTaxRevolution. The questionable savings from combining home rule municipalities, the fact that the unions who really run the state are unwilling to concede anything and the overbearing education mandate essentially unfunded by the state.

Can something be done? Sure. Can it be done with the current crop of politicians in the state of New Jersey. No chance.

Read the article here, it is well worth the time.

Labels: , ,


Friday, June 27, 2008

Off-topic: Local Response to 2nd Amendment Ruling

This isn't about taxes, but I thought I would share a letter that I sent to my Mayor and Assemblyman, John McKeon, today. It's in reference to his press release about the Supreme Court second amendment ruling.
Mayor / Assemblyman McKeon,

I read your press release this morning and would like to respond, as a double constituent of yours.

Briefly, I disagree with your position, and I think your press release is misleading and inappropriate. I expect the first, and am able to handle disagreements cordially even when my ideas are not those that rule, but I very much dislike political statements that try to hoodwink the public.

Specifically:

* The first line says that you "blasted a...ruling creating a blanket right to gun ownership."

This statement is false, because the Court specifically ruled that the right was created by the founders in the bill of rights; when you claim that they "created" a right, you have deliberately misinterpreted the ruling. The Court has not "created" anything. It has interpreted the Second Amendment. For you to disagree with their interpretation is one thing, but you have dissembled about what it means to have a ruling.

The statement is also, in another way, misleading. As Justice Scalia discussed in his written opinion, the right to gun ownership is limited. For you to use the term "blanket" must either mean that it is a right that covers all appropriate circumstances (as any right does), in which case your claim is redundant, or it means that it is a right that can't be constrained, which is false. Since the first usage is defensible but redundant, it sounds like you're trying to say that the right "created" by the court is unconstrained, which is misleading the public.

* Although "we can build guns today the killing capacity of which the Founding Fathers could not have imagined in their wildest dreams", the Founding Fathers knew about handguns (though ours today are better) and knew how to disassemble their muskets; they never imagined that the government they were building would have allowed local governments to break down and lock up their weapons, and, revolutionaries that they were, if a government had told them to do so they no doubt would have rebelled with those very same weapons.

* Your statement that "The Court has essentially given gang members the express right to stockpile guns in their homes under the guise of self-preservation" is particularly egregious. Gang members have no problem getting guns, and you have no right to break into their homes to find them without probable cause, so if the Court had ruled differently this would still be a problem. Moreover, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ruling does nothing to prevent state and local governments from restricting the gun ownership of felons -- and someone who has not been convicted of a crime should not have his rights curtailed.

While I hope that you will reconsider your position on gun control, I think it unlikely and I respect your right to your beliefs. However, I firmly request that you stop using your position to spread misleading statements about the nation's highest Court's decision.

Regards,
Jake Freivald
West Orange
If your local politicians are responding to the ruling, now is the time to show your support or disapproval of their positions. They are all thinking about how to make this play out in the next election.

Labels: , , ,


Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Hey Corzine! Paying down 130 mil while borrowing 3.9 bil is not paying down debt!

This just in from Forbes:

Gov. Jon S. Corzine on Wednesday created a new state fund to pay down debt, a move meant to push the state long plagued by budget woes away from using one-time revenues to balance spending.

"The goal is to constantly be pushing to pay down debt," Corzine said.

The law puts $684 million into the fund, of which $650 million will be used to reduce debt service by $130 million for the next five years.


The Governor and the Legislature are all slapping each other on the back today because for the first time, they didn't take a surplus and spend it.

The $684 million comes from unexpected tax revenue collected this fiscal year and other savings.

You do know what a tax surplus is right? The government 'accidentally' has too much of your money. Let's try a hypothetical.

If you place $1.75 worth of merchandise on the counter and hand the clerk a ten dollar bill, and the clerk gives you back $18.25 (and you want to do with right thing), do you:

a. Spend it.
b. Take it to the bank and pay down your mortgage.
c. Give it back to the clerk.

If you said a, you are destined for the legislature. If you said b, you too could be Governor. If you said c, you are probably following a moving van on your way to live in another state.

Labels: ,


Saturday, June 21, 2008

Educating kids in cities - finally some sense

From this article in Newsday.com:

As New Jersey struggles to improve its poor, urban schools, the liberal-leaning state is considering a measure generally favored by conservatives _ government-backed scholarships to help pay for children to attend private schools.

Seven states and Washington, D.C. offer publicly funded school voucher programs, and New Jersey lawmakers are considering a variation for students attending some of its poorest schools, mostly in bigger cities.

"We cannot continue to look at things the way we have in the past or else this state will not be able to keep its place as one of the best," said state Sen. Raymond Lesniak, D-Union.


In a state where we have fake education initiatives like the Abbot directive from the judiciary which has only served to funnel money into corrupt politicians pockets, we finally have some concern for a real program that can work. When you have many private schools in inner cities closing due to lack of enrollment, and those same schools can educate children more effectively for 25% of the costs, why not err on the side of helping kids. But alas, everyone doesn't see it that way.

But the plan faces fierce opposition from groups who contend the state should be focusing efforts on improving poorly performing urban schools.

"Bad policy, pure and simple," said Joyce Powell, president of the state's largest teachers union.


Ah, the teacher's union. New Jersey's largest political donor to it various state assembly and senate members. Apparently, the teacher's union is more about protecting the teacher's union than teaching kids. I would love to know why the teacher's union has so much money to spread around purchasing political influence in our state.

But parents and advocates from the state's poorest cities are pressing New Jersey lawmakers to approve the measure.

Carmen Alvarado raised five children in one of the nation's poorest cities and saw enough to know she prefers a private school education over public schools.

"Schools where you worry more about your children's safety and whether they will come home at night," Alvarado said.

The Rev. Reginald Jackson, director of the New Jersey Black Ministers Council, said doing nothing would "foolishly continue down the same path."

"This legislation is not anti-public school," Jackson said. "It is pro-quality education."


Interesting to see what the parents of these kids have to say. It's really simple New Jersey. Do you want to continue to have judges throw money to corrupt organizations like the NJ Schools Construction Corp or would you rather utilize an established network or private schools in many cases right in the neighborhoods where the poor children need the most help?

Labels: , ,


Friday, June 20, 2008

Corzine, Stop Buying Scotch!

At the bottom of this Associated Press story is a telling statement about Corzine's approach to borrowing and spending.
Corzine has backed requiring voter approval for new borrowing, but said the school construction money is different because it's court-ordered. The state Supreme Court in 1998 ordered the state to pay for new schools in the poorest school districts.
So if you're told that you must pay for something, you have to be able to borrow money to do it -- regardless of what the voters say.

Consider a normal New Jersey household. (You know, the kind containing a family of people who are thinking of fleeing New Jersey to avoid the outrageous taxes.)

Now consider the husband telling the wife, "Yes, I know we agreed on a budget, and I know that we are in debt up to our ears, but we have to pay taxes, so we have to be able to borrow money for them. I'm going to put them on a credit card. Now I'm going to pop over to the liquor store for a liter of single-malt scotch. Don't worry, we can afford it -- I have cash."

The wife would rightfully beat him about his head and neck. After all, she knows that when you're in debt, you have to control overall spending. When you don't have significant control over a certain expense, that's called "non-discretionary spending". When you can control how much you spend on something, it's called "discretionary spending". The budget must account for non-discretionary spending, sometimes cutting discretionary spending to avoid borrowing to pay for the non-discretionary stuff.

In other words, the wife would shout at her husband, "You idiot! Stop buying scotch when we need money to pay the taxes!"

Corzine needs the equivalent of a sensible wife. Not only doesn't he understand the fact that speculation affects petroleum prices, he doesn't even understand the basics of budgeting.

And this is the guy we elected because of his business experience. Maybe we need politicians with less experience on Wall Street and more experience managing a household budget on Main Street.

Labels: , ,


Thursday, June 19, 2008

Corzine kneejerk rejection of drilling!

From NJ.com:

"I think it will only reinforce the instincts of New Jersey's blue-leaning independents to more solidly get into that camp," Corzine said. "I think New Jersey will be solidly blue this fall."

The Democratic governor spoke on a conference call with two others, North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley and Florida Sen. Bob Graham, to bash McCain's proposal as a "flip-flop" and a "cave-in" to President Bush's policies. Bush today urged Congress to lift the long-standing offshore drilling ban, following McCain's statements this week that allowing each state to decide on drilling could help bring relief as gas prices surpass $4 a gallon.


So Corzine gets a few of his liberal friends together and out of hand dismisses John McCain's proposals to change our energy independence. He pretends that New Jersey is in play in this election. That is a silly joke. New Jersey will vote for the politician who clearly advertises that he will raise taxes every time.
and we know which one that happens to be. Why didn't he have three governors on the call instead of two...

Crist was among the Republicans expressing support for Sen. John McCain's call for lifting the federal moratorium along the Outer Continental Shelf and giving states a share of petroleum revenues as an incentive for them to allow oil and gas drilling off their coasts.

"We have to be sympathetic to the pocketbooks of the people of Florida and what they're paying at the pump for gas, and balance that with: Is there any way that our state might be able to contribute in terms of resources to have greater supply and therefore lower prices?" said Crist, who has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate.

"If that's possible, through good technology or whatever it might be, I think an open-minded person understands that we ought to at least study it."


So while Corzine reflexively says no, the governor of Florida (not the senator from Florida who Corzine trotted out to pretend he was in charge) showed that he has an open mind both to the voters and to change in technology. No one wants spoiled beaches. New Jersey gets them just be being in close proximity to the trash dump that is often New York. But what if China decided to start drilling 90 miles off the New Jersey coast? Seem improbable? That is what is happening to Florida. And who would you trust to drill for oil and take care of the beaches, China or the US?

Corzine also shows why he knows nothing about energy commodities.

Corzine said allowing domestic drilling has "nothing to do with the price of gas today, next month, next year or even five years from now."

To call Corzine a foolish man is to be too kind by half. These prices made it to where they are based on oil speculation. Even the Saudis recently said that fundamentals do not justify the price of oil right now. What does? It is clearly speculation. And what fuels this speculation? One thing is that the US can be relied on to ignore its own energy reserves and has no coherent energy policy. Can't build refineries, can't drill for oil, can't burn coal, can't have nuclear energy, can't can't can't. And it is Corzine and limousine liberals like him who are responsible.

If this country made a strong statement that we will:

1. Commence exploration projects immediately in Anwar and promising areas off our coasts
2. Start building refineries again
3. Advance clean coal burning technologies for natural gas
4. Look to better alternative fuels instead of BURNING OUR FOOD!!!!!

The markets would react and the price will come down. Energy speculators are laughing all the way to the bank when fools like Corzine get up and spew their anti-citizen rhetoric. But then, the governor doesn't have to pay his gas bill, does he.

Labels: , ,


Tuesday, June 17, 2008

More on the Center for Fathers

Special thanks to WBGO's News Director, Doug Doyle, for forwarding the press release about the Center for Fathers to me. I can also now find a tiny amount of coverage for the program (a few of these are essentially the same article): here, here, here, and here.

Here's the press release:
Mayor Booker Tours Newark comprehensive Center for Fathers; Program Provides Support and Resources for City's Dads
Program aims to help Newark fathers raise their children and lead productive lives

Newark, NJ - June 9, 2008 - Mayor Cory A. Booker toured a bold new program to assist Newark fathers at the Newark comprehensive Center for Fathers (NCCF) at Essex County College today. The center is designed to provide an array of services to fathers in transition - men who have lost their jobs or homes, or who are re-entering the workforce following incarceration and who seek to assume greater responsibility for and contribute to the lives of their children.

The facility is administered by the non-profit Newark Now in partnership with the City of Newark; Newark Works; the New Jersey Department of Labor; New Jersey Legal Services; and the ReLese Network. The program is in its third week and already has 20 fathers in the class.

"With the opening of this center, we are now providing the tools that or fathers need to succeed - as men, as parents and as residents of Newark," Mayor Booker said. "I am reaching out to and challenging all the fathers in Newark who are at risk or need help to come out and talk to our staff so that they can help in addressing all needs and concerns. Through the efforts put into this program, residents throughout the City of Newark will be able to sustain successful and productive lives for themselves and their families."

Using a holistic approach, Newark's Comprehensive Center for Fathers offers mentoring, parenting, life skills classes, legal assistance, math and reading skills, individual counseling, support groups, father/child activities. In addition, the program offers employment search and interview preparations services.

At the tour, Mayor Booker was joined by Newark Now Executive Director Modia Butler and Lavar Young, the Executive Director of Newark's Comprehensive Center for Fathers. The NCCF program is based on Philadelphia's nationally-recognized National comprehensive Center for Fathers.

The center's hours are 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday. To contact the center and learn more about its programs, call (973) 733-3460 ext. 432.

Contact:
Press Information Office: (973) 733-8004
Press Secretary Esmeralda Diaz Cameron: (201) 396-2556
E-mail: Pressoffice@ci.newark.nj.us

Labels: , , , ,


Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Happy Fathers' Day from Cory Booker

UPDATE: I apologize for the incoherence of what follows. Special thanks to Doug Doyle, WBGO's news director, for sending me the press release that sparked their news item (now published here), and to Cephas Bowles, WBGO's General Manager, for taking the time to discuss funding for public radio in the comments section below.

I've slightly modified the post to fix a few things that the press release helped me sort out.




I don't know much about Cory Booker, Mayor of Newark, but I want to know more after hearing a news report this morning on Jazz 88, WBGO (if you're not a member, you really should be*).

I'm upset that there isn't coverage about this anywhere. I can't get quotations, and what you're getting is a brain dump of what I heard when I was driving twelve hours ago instead of responsible reporting.

Doug Doyle, the WBGO News Director, talked about a new Center for Fathers in Newark. It's specifically for fathers who are out of work or newly released from jail. Mayor Booker said something to the effect that fathers are a critical part of the life of Newark; that how they fare affects Newark's stability.

Mayor Booker made a comment that I can't clearly recall now, but I remember thinking that he wasn't talking about the equality of the sexes, or of the poor and underprivileged, or of providing handouts to the needy; he was talking about a center where men could learn to be independent men and good fathers in tough times. [From the press release: "With the opening of this center, we are now providing the tools that or fathers need to succeed - as men, as parents and as residents of Newark."]

I hope that I heard correctly. I'd like to know more, but I can't find a thing about this new center out there.

I'm not big on spending money unnecessarily, but seeing a local politician highlight something that would make such a big difference to his environment is really compelling. I wish him well.

-----

* Yes, I know that I shouldn't like Public Radio. I still don't understand what it means to be a "A private corporation funded by the American people", as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) claims to be, nor how the differences between the CPB, PBS, and NPR really matter, if the CPB funds PBS and NPR -- it still sounds like our tax money, just filtered through more layers of bureaucracy. But if they're going to fund it anyway, I'm not going to ignore it out of spite; and if I really think that people should pay for what they want, then WBGO is well worth paying for.

Labels: , , ,


More Bribery in Irvington

It makes me sick to my stomach. Irvington is an economically disadvantaged area. Do the so-called leaders of that community really have to suck more money from it?
Another former Irvington Mayor is facing bribery charges. Michael Steele is accused of accepting at least $120,000 in kickbacks for rigging school district contracts while he was the business administrator for the Irvington Board of Ed....Steele's successor, Sara Bost was indicted in 2002 on accepting 85-hundred dollars in bribes. She later pleaded guilty to a lesser charge.
I hope he doesn't fare as well as Bost. I hope they throw the book at him so hard his teeth break.

Labels: , , ,


Looking at the Poll Numbers

This post has been sitting in draft for a while as I coped with a hard drive failure, but I think the information is still fresh enough to look at. But before I get there, I want to make sure you read Dennis's post on Archbishop Meyers's article in the Catholic Advocate. Go read that one first -- it's getting pushed down the list, but it's much more important than this one -- and then come back.

Done? Great. Let's talk about the recently-released Quinnipiac poll. (That's KWIN-uh-pe-ack, as the press release kindly tells us.) Everyone talks about Corzine and the legislature, but let's also look at how we feel about New Jersey as a whole.
New Jersey voters disapprove 52 - 38 percent of the job Gov. Jon Corzine is doing, among his lowest grades ever, and disapprove 57 - 30 percent of the way he is handling the state budget....

A total of 68 percent of New Jersey voters are "somewhat dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied" with the way things are going in the Garden State, while 32 percent are "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied." Only 10 percent of New Jersey voters say things in the state are better since Corzine became Governor in 2006, while 39 percent say things are worse and 50 percent say they are the same.
In fact, that latter question is one of the few that all groups can agree on: blacks, whites, men, women, Republicans, and Democrats. Check out the numbers. Here's the question:
15. In general, how satisfied are you with the way things are going in New Jersey today? Are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?
And here are the numbers. I've broken them up slightly from the press release so that they'll fit the blog template: I kept the row labels and the "Totals" column for each breakout. (If you don't see what I mean, you can look at the press release.

Tot Rep Dem Ind
Very satisfied 3% 2% 2% 3%
Smwht satisfied 29 25 35 24
Smwht dissatisfied 35 29 37 37
Very dissatisfied 33 43 24 36
DK/NA 1 1 1 1

Tot Men Wom
Very satisfied 3% 3% 2%
Smwht satisfied 29 28 30
Smwht dissatisfied 35 35 34
Very dissatisfied 33 33 33
DK/NA 1 1 1

Tot Wht Blk
Very satisfied 3% 3% 1%
Smwht satisfied 29 28 39
Smwht dissatisfied 35 34 32
Very dissatisfied 33 35 25
DK/NA 1 - 3

Sub Ex
Tot Urban Urbn Urbn
Very satisfied 3% 1% 4% 4%
Smwht satisfied 29 41 32 22
Smwht dissatisfied 35 26 38 37
Very dissatisfied 33 30 26 36
DK/NA 1 2 1 1

Philly
Tot land Shore
Very satisfied 3% 2% 1%
Smwht satisfied 29 26 22
Smwht dissatisfied 35 31 37
Very dissatisfied 33 40 40
DK/NA 1 1 -

Age Age
Tot 18-44 45+
Very satisfied 3% 3% 2%
Smwht satisfied 29 34 27
Smwht dissatisfied 35 35 34
Very dissatisfied 33 28 36
DK/NA 1 - 1

That's a little hard to read, so here are some salient points:
  • Two-thirds of New Jerseyans are dissatisfied with the way things are going in their state.

  • It doesn't matter whether you ask Republicans (72%) or Independents (73%), and it barely matters if you ask Democrats (61%).

  • It doesn't matter if you ask men (68%) or women (67%).

  • It barely matters if you ask blacks (57%) or whites (69%).

  • It doesn't matter if you polling near Philly or on the Shore.

  • Age barely matters.

  • The one thing that appears to matter is the kind of area you live in (56% vs. 64% vs. 73% -- with the smallest number of dissatisfied people in the urban areas, believe it or not).

Only a third of Democrats think that things in NJ have gotten worse under Jon Corzine, vs. half of Republicans and 40% of Independents. Since satisfaction rates themselves haven't changed much since Corzine took office in January 2006 (they dipped from about 70% dissatisfied to about 60% and have risen back to 70%), it's more interesting to note the number of people who think things have gotten worse under Corzine:
 
Jun 11 Feb 20 Dec 11 Feb 28
2008 2008 2007 2007
Better 10 10 14 20%
Worse 39 35 25 15
The same 50 53 59 62
DK/NA 2 2 2 3

That's enough for now, I suppose. See you on the next post...

Labels: ,


Schools don't have to be this expensive.

This article appeared in the Jan. 23, 2008 edition of
The Catholic Advocate

Catholic Schools - a partner in NJ’s educational efforts
BY ARCHBISHOP JOHN J. Myers, D.D., J.C.D.
Archbishop of Newark

This column about Catholic Schools Week is going to be a little different. As you all know, Catholic schools in New Jersey—indeed, throughout the country—are facing a number of challenges, the largest among them how to ensure their continued viability in the face of lower enrollments and higher costs.

Those of us who sponsor schools, administer and teach in them, and work to ensure their future know that this largest challenge is a classic “Catch-22.” The cost of everything rises and so the cost of educating children increases. When you spread that cost among a group of students, it is higher than some parents can afford. As a result, students leave the school, and that means that the cost per student has to increase again. More students then leave because of cost, and so on.

Even while this is happening, every diocese, and especially this great archdiocese, has much to be proud of and to celebrate during Catholic Schools Week: superior, credentialed teaching staffs—an ever-growing number with advanced degrees—that are committed to the mission of Catholic schools and to the children they serve; curricula that is based on the NJ core curriculum, but that the schools augment and expand upon through innovative approaches and enhancements; an education program centered on the Catholic faith that doesn’t stop at one period of “religion” every day, but imbues values and morals throughout the day, in every subject, at every opportunity; a majority of schools that have achieved Middle States certification for excellence; students from all walks of life, from all economic, racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds who enter high school, college and adulthood better prepared, better educated and more motivated to achieve standardized test scores; that demonstrate clearly that parents who choose to send their children to Catholic schools have made the right investment in their children’s future.
To sum it up: Catholic school students are not taught to pass a test. They are taught to succeed in life intellectually, physically and spiritually. The parents of some 140,000 children in this state are well satisfied with the gift of a Catholic education.

Remember, Catholic schools view their role as that of a partner in education with parents. We do not take the place of parents; we work with them to form the whole child academically and morally. This is a major difference between our schools and public schools.
I mention these simple and yet compelling facts because, at this moment in our state’s history, the people of New Jersey are again grappling with the same issue: the challenge of maintaining schools of excellence at a time of rising costs.
And, as with Catholic schools, the problem appears to be one of money. The size of the problem is massive. By some estimates, the average cost to educate a child in a New Jersey public school is in the area of $15,000 per year. In some of the special, or “Abbott” districts, the cost seems to run even higher, approaching $20,000 or more.

All citizens in the state are suffering from the burdens of the increases in property taxes that seem never to end, even as Trenton promises relief. For parents who send children to Catholic or other nonpublic schools, the financial burden is even higher, because they pay twice—once through taxes to the state, and again to the school of their choice.

Some people have no sympathy for those of you who pay for Catholic schools. “It’s your decision,” they say. But as the newspapers tell us almost every day, many of the public schools in our state are not providing our students with the quality education and moral background that they need.

And so, here I come to the point of my column: I firmly believe that school choice is the best solution for education, in general, in New Jersey. There are solid financial and ethical reasons for my belief.

First, the financial reason. The average cost of education in a Catholic elementary school in New Jersey falls somewhere around $5,000 per child—one-third the cost of the average public school. When the state acknowledges that it can save in the area of $10,000 for every child whose parents elect to take advantage of a Catholic education, then it will be saving taxpayers real dollars, every year, by taking advantage of the open seats that exist in Catholic schools throughout the state.
Here, the savings can be enormous. If we were to double the number of children attending Catholic schools today, the additional 140,000 students who enter Catholic schools could produce a savings to New Jersey taxpayers of almost $1 billion per year. The savings do not end there, either. The need for additional classroom space would be lessened, because without those students, new construction wouldn’t be as necessary. And, with fewer students attending public schools, the state can accomplish its goals of providing smaller classes without the need for new buildings and new staff.

Think of it: the 140,000 Catholic school students in New Jersey alone save New Jersey’s taxpayers $2.1 billion annually. Without Catholic schools, that’s how much more the state would need to spend to provide the education that our schools already provide. That’s not considering any new construction, nor does it take into account the other religious and private schools in the state.

But there is an equally compelling reason why New Jersey finally needs to recognize that it cannot achieve real savings or progress in school funding without incorporating parental choice. It is a justice issue. Parents have a right to determine where a child should be educated, so long as the education meets the state’s curriculum guidelines. Catholic schools do that and more.

I continue to support parental choice in schools on many fronts. Direct support for all students is one area, and I know that many in Trenton and elsewhere in the state do not like this idea. They have their reasons, but those reasons are prejudicial to Catholic and non-Catholic parents who struggle to meet tuition, household expenses, and property taxes. I continually hear the mantra that “choice” is something everyone should have. If so, then the right to choose where a child can learn his or her ABCs should be equally regarded.

One area where we can demonstrate that school choice can lead to better lives is through the legislation called the Urban Schools Scholarship Act (see The Catholic Advocate, Oct. 10, 2007). This is a bill I and the other NJ Catholic bishops have been supporting vigorously and vocally. However the bill still languishes in Trenton because some believe it threatens the status quo.

On a pilot basis, this bill calls for the creation of corporate tax credits to provide funding to parents in seven districts in the state so that they can send their children to a school of their choice. Rev. Reginald Jackson of the Black Ministers Council and I, along with clergy of other faith groups, and numerous grassroots parents’ groups have called for this bill to be posted and enacted, because it will prove to the people of this state that a state’s obligation must be to provide the means for parents to select the right educational choice, rather than make the choice for them.

This bill is limited in scope—only in seven of the poorest and most educationally deprived communities in the state. But it is a start and it should be passed. A similar program has been operating successfully for a number of years in every school district in Pennsylvania; the states teachers union supplies it financially.
This week, we celebrate the best of Catholic education (see the special news section in this edition, beginning on page 19). Among the best elements of Catholic schools is the commitment to justice. In order to ensure that Catholic education and Catholic schools can continue to give our children solid and exceptional academic and moral values, I urge all of us to work toward true school choice, in whatever way we can.

Catholic schools are partners—not only with our parents and students, but with the state as well. With school choice, we will ensure that New Jersey is successful in its goals of educating in the best way possible.

Labels: , ,


Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Penalty for Receiving Bribes: Now You Can Only Single-Dip

It's nice to know that crime doesn't pay...
Assemblyman Mims Hackett says he will resign his seat in the New Jersey State Assembly and will withdraw his bid for re-election to a fourth term. His announcement comes two days after his arrest in bribery charges, and one day after state Democratic leaders asked him to step down.

He will remain as the Mayor of Orange.
...more than one salary at a time.

Labels: , ,


Gill's Bill is Fishy

To understand your legislators, read their press releases. The PR for Senator Nia H. Gill's "Save New Jersey Homes Act of 2008" shows how little Gill (D-Essex and Passaic) understands the current fiscal crisis.

She says, "New Jerseyans are losing their homes at an alarming rate due to foreclosure and the home loan crisis which is going on nationwide." Fair enough, foreclosures are up. But then she adds:
The Legislature has an obligation to create a statutory scheme to allow protection for consumers who are struggling to live with the effects of a crisis created by the subprime lending practices of some predatory mortgage lenders.
Okay, I get it: mortgage lenders are evil. (Never mind the fact that nobody would own houses without them.) The best response to evil people is to pass laws that prevent them from hurting you (unless the evil person is Willie Horton, in which case the best response is to put him on furlough). So how should the New Jersey Senate's new law protect homeowners from "predatory mortgage lenders"?
The bill...would require mortgage companies to notify borrowers at 60 and 30 days prior to the date that the interest rates on their home loans reset. These notices would include information regarding the current interest rate under the introductory terms of the mortgage, the date at which the interest rate resets, an explanation of how the reset interest rate would be calculated, and the best estimate by the creditor of the amount of the monthly payment after the reset date. The notice would also include a list of alternatives the borrower can pursue prior to the reset date, including refinancing or renegotiating with the creditor, or applying for an extension on the introductory interest rate.
Ah, the solution is nagging -- forcing mortgage companies to spend millions on mailings to tell people things that they should already know.

Typical Democrats. In Godless, Ann Coulter said that writing letters to the New York Times is what people who don't fight do when they think they're fighting. This is the Senate's letter to the Times. It won't do anything -- if anything, it's an additional economic strain on an already strained industry -- but it will make them feel like they did something.

Where's the beef, then? Apparently, the Senate bill calls for more bureaucracy to ensure that
borrowers would be able to apply for an extension on the introductory mortgage interest rate, up to three years, if they could not afford the monthly mortgage payments after the interest rate resets. They would have to complete a certification of extension prior to the reset date, indicating that they do not have sufficient monthly income, after deductions for necessary living expenses, to pay the monthly payment on the post-reset mortgage, and that they agree to continue payments during the extension period of principal and interest calculated at the introductory rate. Eligible borrowers would still have to pay back the interest deferred during the extension when they sell their homes, and would forfeit the deferment of interest if the borrower fails to make regular payments during the extension.
...in other words, it puts the burden of absorbing the cashflow crunch onto the lender.

So the evil predatory mortgage lenders will be forced to spend more money on notifications to people and to do the things that they do anyway to avoid foreclosures, regardless of the lender's financial situation. This is in an industry that has seen billions of dollars in writedowns and tens of thousands of layoffs. The result is that they'll be more conservative in their loan-making, which will make it less likely that people will be able to afford New Jersey housing. (And have I mentioned property taxes recently?)

Good thing our legislators are spending their taxpayer-funded salaries thinking up ideas like this.

The press release for the Assembly's version of the bill (A-2780, link in PDF) deals with this fact in an even funnier way.
Finally, the legislation would benefit mortgage lenders by providing them with a continuing revenue source. Many lenders have had to close due to declining revenues linked to the loss of mortgage payments coupled by the additional expenses of having to own and maintain foreclosed properties. Lenders have stated they do not want to be real estate owners, particularly since the drop in real estate values means many cannot recoup their original investment.
Interesting. Before this bill, was there a requirement for lenders to foreclose on their borrowers? If not, then how does this "provide" them with a continuing revenue source? It simply forces them to do things that, if it were in their best interest, they would do anyway.

And as long as we're talking about their press release, consider their justification for the bill:
According to published reports, foreclosure rates in February 2008 – the latest month for which such statistics are available – were up 60 percent nationally over the same time from last year. A total of 223,651 homes received at least one notice from a lenders related to an overdue payment, with nearly half of the homes slipping into default for the first time.

New Jersey saw 53,652 foreclosure filings in 2007, a 34 percent increase over 2006.

Nationwide, over 2.2 million foreclosure filings – including default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions – were reported on 1.3 million properties in 2007, a 75 percent increase over the prior year. In excess of 1 percent of all U.S. households were in some stage of foreclosure during the year.
Industry analysts estimate that nationwide another 1.5 million mortgages are due to reset in 2008 and that as many as three million subprime mortgages could end up in foreclosure over the next three years.
They're trying to mislead us somewhat, of course -- the 2.2 million filings are up by 75% nationwide, but we're talking about 1.3 million properties -- but even if you look at the things they say in a straightforward way you see that things aren't as bad as they seem.
  • "Nationwide, over 2.2 million foreclosure filings...were reported...in 2007, a 75 percent increase over the prior year", but "New Jersey saw...a 34 percent increase" in filings. That tells me that we're doing half as badly as the rest of the country.
  • "In excess of 1 percent of all U.S. households were in some stage of foreclosure during the year" tells me that more than 98% of all U.S. households are not in dire straits.
Which makes this comment by Assemblyman L. Harvey Smith (D-Jersey City) all the more galling: "We must act, and act swiftly, before an entire generation of New Jerseyans are forced to join the ranks of the homeless."

I'm convinced that we need to reform our school system just so we can stop calling 1% of New Jerseyans "an entire generation" and to stop calling a 50% increase "a half a penny".

Labels: , , , ,


Monday, June 9, 2008

Reporklicans

I can almost handle hearing about Democrats providing federal earmarks for their states. It's a little like watching a Michael Moore film: it's still awful, but the low intelligence and corrupt nature of the perpetrators makes me more sad than angry.

But Republicans? I'd like to think that I can vote for John Doe (R-NJ) and he'll at least be no worse than the Democrats. It just ain't so: "Leading the way in New Jersey was GOP Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, who by himself brought in almost $30 million. When he co-sponsored with other lawmakers, Frelinghuysen raked in about $88.3 million."

Rodney, you charlatan, stop defrauding your constituents and switch parties already. If you can't make your intellect function properly, at least make it honest. Take Lincoln Chafee as your role model.

People may ask, "what's the big deal?" The federal budget is almost three trillion dollars, which makes the money devoted to earmarks look pretty small: about half a percent.

But in the real world, that's 14.8 billion dollars. That's more than a month's worth of the cost of the Iraq war.

Of course, when Democrats want to tell you how awful the war is, they'll tell you that it costs far, far too much. But how much is too much? Isn't actual warfighting and the security of the Middle East worth at least ten times more than the pet projects of the visionaries who gave us the Bridge to Nowhere?

Everyone will claim that the money is going to good projects. I'll even stipulate, for the sake of argument, that some of the projects are worth investing in. But that's not the question, which is, "Which of these programs should be paid for with federal funds?" The following New Jersey earmarks are highlighted in the article:
  • $500,000 for background checks of youth athletic league coaches through a "Megan's Law" foundation
  • $117,500 for handheld radios for the South River Police Department
  • $980,000 for an environmental study on the Monmouth-Ocean-Middlesex railroad line
  • $1,200,000 for a Lakewood company to develop a blast-resistant coating for military vehicles
  • $4.9 million for beach replenishment and new sand dunes along Long Beach Island
  • $6.4 million for autism research through the Defense Department, submitted in part by U.S. Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., because of high rates of autism in Brick and military families.
The answer, I'm afraid, is "none of them."
  • Yes, I'm sure the South River Police Department needs radios -- but why is this a federal affair?
  • If the railroad line is Monmouth-Ocean-Middlesex, why aren't the people from Monmouth, Ocean, and Middlesex paying for the environmental study?
  • Are there really no investors that think that they should invest in blast-resistant coatings? During a war that spends half a billion dollars a day? If so, why are we subsidizing their investments? If not, why should the federal government gainsay them and invest anyway?
  • Is Long Beach Island a federal beach? Is protecting our right to walk on the sand one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, or should this one just possibly revert to the states? (Besides, if not for imperfect beaches, corrupt former governor Jim McGreevey wouldn't have hurt himself while walking with his boy toy, Golan Cipel.)
  • The most rational-sounding one on the list is the DoD's research on autism -- but since I don't know what research they're doing, I can't say whether it will help military families cope with autism or not. I have a child with autism, and I've been in the military, and I've had friends who had autistic children while in the military. I know it's a problem, and we should support our troops however necessary; but I'm wary of federal-level "research" in this area. If it's general medical research on autism, it's not going to help the troops who have autistic kids now.
I can't stand the way Democrats spend, but tax-and-spend Republicans are even worse.

How Screwed Up Do We Need To Be?

Read this article from the Star-Ledger. Take particular note of a few passages:
New Jersey is struggling with more than $32 billion in state debt, the third-highest in the country. All but $3 billion was issued without voter backing.
And then this:
The state constitution already says voters must approve borrowing, but lawmakers routinely have dodged the requirement by authorizing quasi-state agencies to issue billions in debt, and promising to repay it through the state budget.
Got that? According to the state constitution, 90% of our bloated debt slips through a loophole to survive, like Teddy Kennedy escaping his seatbelt at Chappaquiddick.

But apparently we're idiots, because we'll listen to people who tell us things like this:
Critics of the amendment [to require the approval of voters to issue new debt] say it would sap power from legislators elected to make intricate decisions, and turn complex borrowing schemes into yes-or-no issues vulnerable to voters' snap judgments.

"Simple bumper-sticker politics do not lend themselves to (that) kind of decision-making," said Steve Wollmer, spokesman for the powerful New Jersey Education Association teachers union. "It would really limit or potentially cripple the state's ability to make timely investments for the public good."
Of course, by "voters' snap judgments" Mr. Wollmer means "the democratic process". But maybe he has a point: maybe democracy is overrated. It's the same voters' snap judgments that got Jim McGreevey and Richard Codey into office, after all.

Mr. Wollmer thinks that the democratic process should be circumvented for "the public good". I don't know how good his math is -- he's a spokesman for the NJEA, after all, and they don't really focus much on quality education -- but New Jersey has 8,724,560 people and thirty-two billion dollars ($32,000,000,000) in debt. That means that the state owes $3668 for each man, woman, and child in New Jersey. That debt load is not in "the public good". The attitude of Mr. Wollmer and fellows like him is not in the public good.

A government living within its means? That's practically the definition of "the public good".

Richard Codey disagrees because we might be "tying a future governor's and Legislature's hands" should a need for emergency borrowing arise. But like former president Clinton meeting the Razorback cheerleaders, their hands should be tied, and for the same reason -- to stop them from grabbing everything they can get their hands on.

The problem is not that I want to prevent noble men and women to be unable to lead our state through difficult times, but that most of our state legislators are neither noble nor leaders. Codey says, "There are times when you'd need to do it and do it right away and not necessarily wait for an election," and I agree -- but now's not the time.

Not when Richard Codey thinks that there shouldn't be a democracy-based check on public spending.

Not when our so-called leaders have shown themselves incapable of knowing when they should borrow and when they shouldn't.

Not when they circumvent our constitutional process and issue eleven times more debt than they are allowed to.

Not when the State Supreme Court has "ruled the state could continue to issue bonds through its authorities without asking voters first."

That last fact is particularly galling. The ruling came in 2003. "The justices in the minority," the article says, "said the decision essentially killed the clause in the constitution giving voters control," which provides us with One More Example of a liberal court undermining a constitution. In an understatement to tell your grandkids about, Seton Hall University political scientist Joseph Marbach says, "The fact that we need a constitutional amendment to tell the court what the constitution says is also a little bit troubling."

We're in a budget crisis that makes Governor Corzine want to octuple our tolls, shut down hospitals, and provide fiscal responsibility (in the form of increased taxes for outdoor projects). How bad does it need to get before we stop spending money on superfluous certificates for veterans? How screwed up do we have to be as a state before we stop providing handouts to artists? How screwed up do we need to be before they stop spending our money -- and our kids' money, and our grandkids' money?

How screwed up do we need to be before we stop allowing these guys to destroy our state?

Labels: , , , , ,


Saturday, June 7, 2008

What's wrong with NJ?

Here at NJ Tax Revolution, we spend a lot of time trying to figure out what went wrong in a state that has so much more going for it than against. On the positive side, we have a massiv e number of hard working people who commute to work in Philadelphia, Wilmington and New York every day. We also have a reasonable number of NJ businesses to avoid the label of "bedroom state". So what is really he problem?

I would theorize that one of the first problems is how people see themselves contributing to the society of the state. And this is the area I want to start with in this analysis.

Type 1 - the truly needy

These folks through a variety of reasons need help in our society. They disproportionately live in our border cities and are partly a result of bad public policy in PA and NY. Many of these people may or not be too far gone to help but their children are not and it is our failure to them that really defines us.

Type 2 - the parasites

It has become a cottage industry in our state to encourage non-productive people to seek out handouts and giveaways rather than work hard and provide for themselves. For example, the fact that our state gives out property tax rebates to apartment dwellers while denying them to true land owners suggest a form of welfare not explained in the public square.

If you fall for the mantra of 'tax the rich guy and give to me', there is a very high probability that you are a parasite. If you are a state worker who feels that your pension is a god given right despite the fact that the normal taxpayer in this state who pays your salary is not entitled to a pension in the commercial sector, you are a parasite.

Why mention this? Because parasites depend on the host to survive. If the host moves to Florida en masse, you lose.

Type 3 - the sheep

These folks occur both on the Demoractic and Republican side. They continue to vote in ways that backup a corrupt and influence laden environment that isn't helping NJ. For example, you passively accept candidates that are served up by party bosses without question and will sink those who be buck the trend regardless of evidence. Examples of this are Andrews this year and Schundler a few years ago.

Type 4 - the elite

They know better than you and must decide what is right for everyone. They include our current Governor who in the face of fiscal calamity declared, 'I didn't take this job to be scrooge'. Courage is not an elite charistic.

Type 5 - the rest of us - the lost

That represents most of New Jersey. We hate what is happening to our state but gravitate to one of the other categories to belong. And in doing so, destroy the state one election at a time. For every person who says that they don't matter, there is another family with a moving van on there way south.

NJ - Hamilton about to lose new Genesis Biotech project

From today's Trentonian, it looks like the writing is on the wall for Hamilton to lose a 1000 jobs business due to typical New Jersey anti-business dithering:

Word broke this week that the developer of the research facility has become discouraged by a year of being mired in local red tape as well as intensified inflationary pressures.

State economic development officials on the state level in Pennsylvania, meanwhile, have lately made an offer to woo the project to their side of the river.

In response, Mayor John Bencivengo hastily fired off a letter to Corzine requesting financial or any other help in keeping Hamilton competitive.


It seems that New Jersey can't seem to get its act together even when it means new jobs. What is sad is that while the Governor is always ready to propose a new tax on those already living here, he doesn't seem to have time for new business UNLESS is has to do with his doomed stem cell initiatives. But alas, he is weighing in:

“We heard back from the governor’s office that they are sensitive to the situation, and they’re going to do everything in their power to ensure that Genesis stays here,” Angarone told The Trentonian yesterday.

This is strange as well. Why would one have to "hear back" from a Governor who allegedly should be right in the middle of this process. You can be sure that Ed Rendell has his hands in incentives PA intends to give this company to go to Pennsylvania.

But then the developer dropped the bomb that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had offered the temptation of some juicy “incentives” — which, in an inflation-saturated age, could pose a real threat to Hamilton keeping the project.

Sad. Read the entire article here.

Labels: ,


Friday, June 6, 2008

If you really want to support inner city kids, support this!

New Jersey Catholic Conference
149 North Warren Street • Trenton, New Jersey 08608 (609) 989-1120 • Fax (609) 989-1152
SUPPORT S1607
The Urban Enterprise Zone Jobs Scholarship Act
ISSUE: S1607 (The Urban Enterprise Zone Jobs Scholarship Act) has been sent to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee as the next step in its legislative journey. The bill will provide scholarships funded through tax credits to corporations in several Urban Enterprise Zones where children are struggling to obtain a quality education.
OUR POSITION: The New Jersey Catholic Conference and the New Jersey Network of Catholic School Families have supported this legislation from its inception. Children in these designated districts need the same opportunities for school choice that children in other districts in New Jersey have as a result of their ability to enroll in another school when they are having difficulties in their current school.
ACTION: Please do the following as quickly as possible:
1-Call, email or fax the member of the Senate Budget and Appropriation Committee in your district (see attached list) to ask him/her to support the bill.
2-If you do not have a member of the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee in your district, please call your own State Senator and ask that he or she speak with colleagues on the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee to vote favorably on S1607. You can search for your Senator by municipality at http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/districts/municipalities.asp#T. This expression of support will be important as the bill continues its legislative journey through the New Jersey Senate.
3-Call the office of Senator Barbara Buono, chair of the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee and ask that she schedule the bill for a hearing as soon as possible. Q & A ON THE LEGISLATION ARE AVAILABLE AT THE NJCC WEBSITE: www.njcathconf.com. They were also attached to the Action Alert which was issued on May 12, 2008, addressing specific action steps regarding the Assembly version of the bill.
PLEASE INVITE FAMILY AND FRIENDS TO JOIN YOU IN THIS EFFORT.
Thank you for your immediate cooperation with this request.
Representing the Archdiocese of Newark, Diocese of Camden, Diocese of Metuchen,
Diocese of Paterson, Diocese of Trenton, Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Passaic and
Our Lady of Deliverance Syriac Catholic Diocese

Labels:


Thursday, June 5, 2008

Republicans submit budget proposal-Corzine Scoffs

Why is it that when politicians like Jon Corzine talk about working in a bipartisan way, he usually means that everyone needs to capitulate to his poor tax and spending plans. NJ Republicans submitted their budget plan yesterday(from Philly.com):

The Republican proposal would restore $375 million in property-tax rebates and $150 million in municipal aid, provide $500 million for transportation and allow $195 million to be restored to what they consider "unfair" cuts, which may include charity care to hospitals and co-payments for Medicaid. It would also reduce spending from the governor's proposal by $100 million.

The money would come from a variety of sources, including massive cuts to "special municipal aid," the poorly defined state grants that were the subject of criticism in a recent state auditor's report; smaller increases for former Abbott school districts; reforming the state's procedures for procuring goods and services; increasing the retirement age for many government employees from 60 to 62, and calculating a state employee's pension based on salary in the last five years of service instead of the last three.


Of course the devil is in the details and we will review them in detail later. However, Corzine's response is typical is his spoiled rich guy approach to most everything:

"Republicans are following in the footsteps of their predecessors by talking about spending money and restoring cuts without offering any legitimate way to pay for them," Corzine said. "This is all make-believe math. This is the same sort of gimmickry and trickery that has put the state in the fiscal mess we now find ourselves trying deal with."

Governor, what do you call make-believe math? It has been clearly shown that changing the retirement age would make a huge difference in the pension obligation of the state. And also, that it is much more difficult for municipal employees to load up their pay with overtime when they need to do it for 5 years instead of three.
That is real math. The make-believe part is YOUR unwillingness to stand up to the special interests that are protecting the municipal workers and would bankrupt the state before offering a single concession. Your leadership is what is "make-believe".

I was actually impressed with Comrade Roberts:

Assembly Speaker Joseph J. Roberts, Jr. (D., Camden) was less negative, but also noncommittal.

"Every item on the Republicans' list deserves to be fully vetted for feasibility and potential impact on the state's long-term bottom line," Roberts said. "Democrats and Republicans alike are committed to delivering a final budget that makes government at all levels more accountable and will make the state more affordable. No idea that potentially could help New Jersey's taxpayers will be rejected out-of-hand."

Specifically, Roberts noted that, like the Republicans, he hopes to replace "gimmicky" property-tax rebate checks with direct property-tax credits, which should be less expensive to administer.


Here's to the hope that this proposal starts the process of getting the budget under control and stops the "where can we tax next" cycle we seem to have been in for the past 4 months.

Read the entire article here.

Labels: , , ,