NJ House Healthcare Traitors

It was a short time ago that this Rutgers-Eagleton poll was released. Two interesting statistics that came out of the poll were that while 88 percent of respondents felt that change was needed, 70 percent thought that the congress needed to start over(ie that this legislation would not solve the problem). This poll was conducted right here in New Jersey and should have been instructive to our state House of Representatives members.

But alas only one Democrat (John Adler NJ-3) and all Republicans thought that they should pay any attention to what New Jersey voters think. Come election time, remember the following Democrat Non-Representatives:

Robert Andrews NJ-1
Rush Holt NJ-12
Frank Pallone NJ-6
Bill Pascrell NJ-8
Donald Payne NJ-10
Steven Rothman NJ-9
Albio Sires NJ-13

Each of these people decided that Nancy Pelosi was more important that the voters of the State of New Jersey. And they cannot say they didn't know. Adler clearly got the message he resisted all summer and deserves some credit for that. I hope each of the rest of these NON-representatives soon get to know this new healthcare world they will enjoy as FORMER members of the House.

---

For Whom Was The Term "Imperial Presidency" Coined, Again?

Got an email from Barack Obama today. It says, in part (boldface in the original):

We have all been forced to ask if our politics had simply become too polarized and too short-sighted to meet the pressing challenges of our time. This struggle became a test of whether the American people could still rally together when the cause was right -- and actually create the change we believe in.

Yeah. Because when every Republican votes against your bill, that's not "too polarized".

He talks as if the American people rallied together around this cause; as if this were change that most Americans believe in; as if most Americans weren't against it.

This is the change that he believes in, perpetrated on us by a bunch of people with insufficient spine to stand up to Chicago politics.

It amazes me that people claimed that George Bush had an "Imperial Presidency". This whole process has been such a staggering display of ego it's hard to describe.

---

Meet Bart Stupak's replacement: Dr Dan Benishek

You can go to know him on facebook here.

UPDATE: I corrected my previous misspelling of Dr Benishek's name. Sorry Doc!

---

Obama's Idea of "Common Purpose" and His Real Similarity To Abe Lincoln

I was struck by this graphic from the Wall Street Journal. The raw partisanship of it expresses so much.

No, I'm not surprised. Obama has been telling us that this is his modus operandi all along.

Of course, one could misinterpret Obama's candidacy announcement, and his talk of "common purpose".

In the face of a politics that's shut you out, that's told you to settle, that's divided us for too long, you believe we can be one people, reaching for what's possible, building that more perfect union....

It was here we learned to disagree without being disagreeable -- that it's possible to compromise so long as you know those principles that can never be compromised; and that so long as we're willing to listen to each other, we can assume the best in people instead of the worst....

This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change.

By ourselves, this change will not happen. Divided, we are bound to fail.

But nobody should be fooled by these musings of togetherness and common purpose. In the same speech, Obama talked about Lincoln rallying people during the Civil War, in which the South hated "Northern aggression" enough to fight and die for it -- and Lincoln was unwavering in bringing those renegade states to heel.

In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free.

That's what Abraham Lincoln understood. He had his doubts. He had his defeats. He had his setbacks. But through his will and his words, he moved a nation and helped free a people....

As Lincoln organized the forces arrayed against slavery, he was heard to say: "Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought to battle through." That is our purpose here today.

That's why I'm in this race.

Not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation.

Is it possible that he really believes his statement that this legislation "runs straight down the center of American political thought"? I don't think so. I think he can see the same graphic that I did at the top of this post, and come to the same conclusion.

This is Obama's model: He believes his purpose to be as great as Lincoln's, and he has waged a total war to impose it. That he divides his nation to do it is immaterial to him.

As long as I'm calling this fight a war, perhaps it won't seem too melodramatic to quote Lincoln against Obama.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate...we can not consecrate...we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

---

Hey Bart Stupak: Planned Parenthood Sends Their Thanks

Hi, Bart. I thought you might want to see this.

I received an email from the Planned Parenthood mailing list this morning, and it contained this paragraph:

We were able to keep the Stupak abortion ban out of the final legislation, and President Obama did not include the Stupak language in his Executive Order. Unfortunately, the bill does include the Nelson amendment, which will impose new and severe restrictions on private health insurance coverage for abortion for millions of women. And no doubt we will have to beat back more attacks on women's health as the Senate considers the final health care reform package. We'll let you know when we'll need your help in the days and weeks ahead.

Yes, you heard right, Bart. Ben Nelson's Cornhusker Kickback did more for the pro-life cause than you did. At least he got his thirty pieces of silver.

And note that Planned Parenthood's President, Cecile Richards, highlights the fact that the legislation is unaltered first; that's no doubt because she knows that the Executive Order that you asked for doesn't alter the law as passed -- there's this little thing called "the separation of powers" that prevents the executive branch from overriding the legislative branch.

I would think that a long-time Congressman like you would know that. After all, you weren't subject to the decay of education that's happened since the unconsitutional Department of Education was born under our second-most-awful President, Jimmy Carter. (I know it's too early to see the effect of the Healthcare bill, but I think we're safe granting the top title to Obama already.)

Of course, I think this whole executive order thing is a fig leaf anyway. This video shows how insincere you were all along, and I only wish it were around earlier so the pretense could have been dropped:

So, you were never sincere about your pro-life stance, and you showed that either you're stupid (by believing that the EO is worth something) or conniving (because you're using it as an excuse). Before that, you were never one of us conservatives, but at least you looked like you had a spine. You appeared to have something rare in a politician: a spine. Now you're despised by both right and left, and a hollow man to the center. Is it any wonder that the world is noting the similarity between "Stupid" and "Stupak"?

Sincerely,
Jake Freivald

P.S. By the way, "Sincerely" means "I mean what I say."

---

NJ: For all of you that don't think the Governor should cut anything

While reviewing the Governors Budget in Brief summary today, I ran across the following chart. What it depicts is New Jersey budget spending since 2002.



This diagram is more scary that I already thought. If you recall, we compared 10 years of budget in brief last year while reviewing Jon Corzine's budget. And we showed how he was claiming to be reducing the budget while at the same time significantly increasing the size and scope of the state government. Of course, we were using budget in brief number appropriations numbers are a little harder to interpret.

This chart shows the net results of the last three Democrat governors in this state. And you cannot tell me that this state cannot have its budget cut when just 7 years ago the state was spending more that 30 percent less than it is today. And while many disingenuous people will claim that the governor is saving "fat cats" billions while the little guy is being harmed, get a grip. The "fat cats" moved out of New Jersey several years ago and their companies along with them. And all that has been left behind is the only growth industry New Jersey seems to offer-government spending. It's about time our state leaders acted like adults. It's also about time the citizens of the state of New Jersey held all of our elected officials accountable.

So if you read this and are still think this is still all so unfair. Take the time to go and look up the spending history of your state senator and member of the assembly. You know, the person you voted for because you recognized their name or because they were a Democrat just like you. Add up their spending. And then look at the mirror. Because this spending was caused by you.

---

Legislature to study state vehicles

Philly.com is reporting today that the senate has submitted a bill to being a study of the use of state vehicles:

The New Jersey Senate's state government committee yesterday advanced a measure to study how to reduce the roughly 7,000 vehicles used for state business.

During the next five fiscal years, supporters say, the state could save an estimated $28 million. That would be offset by money the state spends on mileage reimbursements for employees who use their personal vehicles instead. There is no estimate on how much the reimbursements would total, according to the bill.

It is not clear whether the savings estimates are too high or grossly underestimate the costs of the states vehicle fleet. What is clear is that our state has WAY too many state owned vehicles sitting in people's driveways at night. And judging from the number of state vehicles converging on Trenton every day from every direction, one suspects that for many these vehicles are perks, not requirements of their job.

Read the entire article here.

---

APP: NJ Transit employee pay shoots up 24%

The Asbury Park Press ran this story the other day that you may have missed but I guarantee you will find interesting.

New Jersey Transit's payroll rose more than $154 million from 2006 to 2009, when the agency paid a total of $804 million in salaries and wages.

The payroll increase was up 24 percent between those years, about three times the rate of inflation. The consumer price index for New York-northern New Jersey rose just 7.3 percent from 2006 to the end of 2009.

This is interesting. New Jersey Transit raised fares in 2002, 2005 and 2007. They are preparing to raise fares 25% this year. But isn't it interesting that when they recognized a few years ago (2005) that they couldn't live within their budget, it didn't impact their hiring practices.

Note the following from the APP.COM article:

Other payroll facts regarding 2006 and 2009, as obtained by the Press from public records:

-- Total overtime costs rose 22 percent, from $97.4 million to $118.5 million;
-- The total payroll rose 24 percent, from $646.4 million to 804.3 million;
-- The number of employees rose 14 percent, from 11,247 to 12,809;
-- The average total pay for all employees, including overtime, rose 9 percent, from $57,474 to $62,794.

So they added a significant number of people during a time when most companies were reducing their workforce by large amounts. They also increased the pay for their people at a 9 percent. We have very few if any readers that would tell you that their company average employee pay increased during this period. As a matter of fact, I would bet that if you analyzed the pay at most companies during the 2006-2009 period, the average pay would have gone down.

These figures suggest that perhaps New Jersey Transit could use a downsizing before they ask to raise fares by such a significant margin.

---

Judiciary Chair Greenstein wants to study inmates-with your money

The Chair of the NJ State Assembly Judiciary committee Linda Greenstein has submitted legislation to establish a blue ribbon panel to study....prison inmates. You can review the proposal here.

Does anyone wonder why the average citizen of New Jersey has absolutely no respect for our legislators or their ability to correct any of the state's myriad of issues? For example, I wonder where this proposal would fall in a ranking of state priorities that would include the following this year?

- Jobs
- Businesses leaving the state
- State Budget deficit
- Citizens fleeing the state
- Out of control property taxes
- Corrupt state politicians
- Out of control healthcare costs
- Inner city schools that fail their students
- Legislators bought and paid for by special interests (sorry, too close to home)

I wonder if Assemblywoman Greenstein has taken a drive through certain segments of her own district's neighborhoods lately. It is not a pretty site. Three weeks ago she probably could not have if she wanted to because most of the roads were impassable many days after the snow stopped. But I think it is safe to say that even if she does drive by, she doesn't linger very long.

Which makes me wonder why, of all the things she could be worried about, her best idea is to create a 'panel'. Perhaps, it all comes down to this:

(3) The members of the panel shall serve without compensation, but shall be eligible for reimbursement for necessary and reasonable expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties within the limits of funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the commission for its purposes.

For regular everyday citizens who might read this you might think that the 'cost' of this bill will be negligible. However, the definition of 'necessary and reasonable' expenses in the world of lawyers can amount to significant money very quickly. So in the end, this is all about patronage.

This is about Linda Greenstein giving away your tax money to her legal friends to study why people are in prison. This is pure and simple GOVERNMENT WASTE.

---

NJ Transit fare hike and dumping the property tax rebate

There were two significant fiscal austerity changes proposed by the current administration that are sure to get NJ residents blood boiling (including mine). The first was the announcement of NJ Transit's fare hike proposal(from this link at NJTransit.com):

March 5, 2010
NJT-10-020

NEWARK, NJ — Citing a looming $300 million budget deficit for the coming fiscal year, NJ TRANSIT today released a proposal to increase fares by 25 percent systemwide and trim service proportionate to recent ridership declines.

Under the proposal, a one-zone local bus trip or one-way ticket on Newark or River Line light rail lines would increase from $1.35 to $1.70 per ride, remaining lower than base fares on transit systems in New York ($2.25) and Philadelphia ($2.00). One-way commuter rail tickets would increase about 25 percent, subject to rounding. Rail ticket prices vary based on distance, but one-way fares would rise from a range of $1.25-$13.25 to a range $1.50-$16.50. (For example, a trip from Metropark in Iselin, NJ to New York Penn Station today is $8 and under the plan would rise to $10.) Hudson-Bergen Light Rail tickets would increase from $1.90 to $2.40 per trip.

“We recognize that any increase is a burden for our customers, particularly during a recession,” said Executive Director Jim Weinstein. “However, we have worked to keep local bus fares below the regional average and preserved some important discounts for seniors and people with disabilities, as well as for students and others who are among the most transit dependent.”

As a daily rider on NJ Transit you cannot feel good about this. But one also has to consider that our transit prices are actually pretty low by global standards and when there isn't money, there isn't money. Like it or not however, this is an additional 'tax' on the working class of New Jersey at a very difficult time.

Then this from Philly.com:

In a switch, Christie may end property-tax rebates
By Jonathan Tamari

Inquirer Trenton Bureau

TRENTON - Gov. Christie is considering scaling back or eliminating property-tax rebates in his budget proposal, a move that could yield significant savings but would mean going back on a campaign pledge.

As Christie tries to close a projected $11 billion deficit next fiscal year, scenarios under discussion include slashing the popular but expensive rebates, according to two administration officials with knowledge of budget talks.

They stressed that no final decisions had been made. Christie is scheduled to unveil his budget March 16.

At a cost last year of $1.1 billion, rebates form one of the largest pools of money in the budget. Lawmakers in both parties have said privately for weeks they expect cuts to the program.

Rebates are one of the most tangible ways state government tries to offset New Jersey's high local property taxes, which average nearly $7,300. The program is so large and costly, though, that it is a prime target for governors seeking spending cuts.

We have never supported the NJ Property Tax Rebate program here at NJTaxRevolution and have commented on it many times. When productive citizens who pay most of the property taxes are not eligible for the rebates while apartment renters get checks, something is seriously wrong. The rebate program has always been a political gimmick and resembles welfare far more than an actual refund for taxes paid. The state should scrap it and actually work on the problem of skyrocketing property taxes.

And if politicians want to give out checks to apartment dwellers or others they deem politically important to them, let them pass the legislation in the sunlight. And let the citizen determine whether or not they were responsible uses of the taxpayers money. But don't hide behind a 'fake' rebate to play Santa Claus with our tax money to buy votes.

Let's hope that this is just the beginning for the governor. The Democrats are going to scream bloody murder. And I am glad. Because if they didn't, I would know the governor wasn't really cutting anything.

---