Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to All!

And keep this thought. While the kids are unwrapping presents and you are visiting the family, the legislators in Trenton and Washington DC are not doing anything. And for that I will give thanks!

---

NJ Legislature: The Silly Season Begins...

As we have commented in the past, the New Jersey does their best impression of fiddling while Rome burns after election time each year. It is during this time that our elected representatives in the Assembly and Senate take a look at the prevailing issues of the day and then completely ignore them. Prior sessions gave us critical legislation like their apology for slavery. And while you tend to expect a certain amount of legislative stupidity out of Trenton, the stakes right now for our state are high and the citizen's want seriousness.

So what are the silly season highlights so far?

A Democratic state lawmaker has introduced a bill that would force Republican Gov.-elect Christopher J. Christie to select a Democrat to replace New Jersey's U.S. senators - both of them Democrats - if either was unable to complete his term.
(From the Inquirer)

When Republican Chris Christie unseated Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine in the gubernatorial election last month, it gave gay-rights activists more urgency to try to achieve their long-held goal of getting a same-sex marriage bill through the Legislature before Christie takes office Jan. 19.

The reason is simple: Corzine supports the bill. Christie says he would veto it.
(AP)

In summary, our legislators think the most pressing issues of the day are some pre-planning for election gerrymandering and gay marriage. It is interesting that exit polls from our most recent election didn't mention either one of those topics. And to refresh our esteemed legislators minds, here is what the PEOPLE want them to concentrate on:

1. Economy and jobs
2. Property taxes
3. Corruption

Well, it least they are working on continuing the third one. But for some reason, I don't think that's what the voters were looking for....

---

Forbes: NJ begging for help for bad budget behavior

Forbes had an excellent article today about state governments going hat in hand to Washington to beg for relief for their bad practices in budgeting and spending.

Subsidies, whether broad or targeted, do not deliver recovery. They veil bad behavior and poor financial decisions, while encouraging more of the same--leaving the underlying causes for failure to fester. And once aid is handed out, it is hard to know when to stop. That's the Samaritan's Dilemma: when the expectation of subsidies leads to increased dependency upon them. Aid begets more aid.

The reality of this situation is that New Jersey, New York and California were is major trouble BEFORE the current business collapse. The real issue is that they all have liberal (Republican and Democrat) legislatures that can't wait to find something to throw money at or tax. And then, when a serious problem occurs, they are not prepared in any way shape or form. And here is the kicker that we at njtaxrevolution said all along:

Bad habits also persist. Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey found $600 million in cuts this June, only to borrow $3.9 billion for school construction projects, with another bond issue of $750 million for transportation projects underway.

This is like my wife and I deciding to tighten the belt and cutting spending on presents for the kids this Christmas. And then borrowing for a new pool, a new car and our next vacation. When will the people of this state wake up?

Read the entire article here.

---

NJ spending is fixed by courts? So fix the courts.

In this article in the CourierPostOnline, Sharon Schulman discusses the budget options available to New Jersey legislators. Her point is that there are not too many options available to cut:

There is no magic bullet that allows a governor or legislature to give us property-tax relief without creating pain elsewhere. They are constrained by the nearly 75 percent of the state budget that is fixed and cannot be touched. So in a $30 billion budget, $21.5 billion is fixed and cannot be cut. The idea of cutting the state budget 10 percent really only means cutting 10 percent of $8.5 billion -- not from $30 billion. A brief look at the 75 percent of the state budget that is fixed shows us that 60 percent is mandated programs and results of court decisions. They include:

Medicaid

State labor contracts, including contractual commitments to provide health care and other benefits

Court-supervised child welfare reform

Court-ordered spending in Abbott districts

Debt service payments

Great points all. So here we go with suggestions.

1. Our supreme court in New Jersey is frankly a political patronage mill. These people are not exceptional jurists. They are partisan appointees. So what to do?

-Fight the Abbott ruling and have the legislature refuse to follow the courts. New York did and and was successful in getting the payments down and under control.

2. Medicaid rules do not specify all of what should be covered and by what amount. Re-evaluate the New Jersey exposure and cut it to the median of the 50 states expenditure per person.

3. Revisit state labor contracts. Situations change and with a state that is closing in on bankruptcy, everything should be on the table. If the unions won't meet halfway, maybe the citizens will see that only those of us in the private sector are expected to take a hit in bad times. And the result of that will be a taxpayer revolt.

4. Stop borrowing. While the current administration bemoans debt service, they decided to borrow another 3.9 BILLION dollars. Stop it.

These changes would immediatelry have an impact on the budget and the care and feeding of corrupt patronage feeder systems in New Jersey. If EVERYTHING is on the table, then changes can happen.

---

NJ's Do Nothing Legislature Returns

From this article in NJ.com:

The summer silence at the Statehouse ends Monday when the Legislature returns from a 12-week break. Leaders hope to spend the rest of the year fine-tuning a new housing law, tightening ethical standards and passing long-delayed reforms of the government's power to seize property through eminent domain.

Senate President Richard Codey (D-Essex) said lawmakers also will hold hearings aimed at combating underage binge drinking "so we can save lives on our college campuses" and cracking down on diploma mills.

This is so indicative of the useless legislature we have in this state. Businesses are leaving, people are being priced out, local municipalities are running out of money because Trenton has taken it all and what do they want to work on? Free housing, fake ethical standards and eminent domain. Oh, and binge drinking. They are complete clowns. But they at least are admitting the truth:

"I don't think we're going to be all that busy," predicted Assembly Minority Leader Alex DeCroce (R-Morris).

And Codey concedes "there's no universal, overriding issue that everybody's engaged in."

Really? Nothing pressing. Losers every one.

---

Obama's Supporters Think The Soprano State's Leaders Are Doing A Great Job

Want Yet Another Reason not to vote for an Obama-nation? How about the fact that his backers think New Jersey legislators are to be commended?

N.J. eco-group backs Obama, gives lawmakers high marks
2 senators, 8 congressmen get perfect scores

A state environmental advocacy group yesterday announced its endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for president and gave New Jersey's two U.S. senators and eight of its 13 congressmen perfect scores for their environmental records.

Environment New Jersey based its report card on 10 votes between January 2007 and February 2008 that involved combating global warming, promoting clean energy, protecting air and water, and opposing offshore drilling, Executive Director Dena Mottola Jaborska said at a Statehouse news conference.

So if you're interested in the kinds of things that make Obama friends, it's business-unfriendly government. And half-measures aren't enough. You have to really hate business. For example:

Erica Elliott, Garrett's [Rep. Scott Garrett (R-5th Dist.)] spokeswoman, called the congressman's poor marks "an unfair representation," and issued a list of his environmentally-oriented advocacy. It includes his introduction of a bill to expand the National Wallkill Wildlife Refuge in Sussex, and his support of getting a toxic waste site in Ringwood re-listed on the Superfund National Priorities List.

Scott, of course, scored the lowest in the state, which may be good or bad, but I certainly can't tell from the negative picture painted by this environmentalist group. After all, look at who they like:

Voting environmentally friendly 100 percent of the time were U.S. Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, both Democrats, and Reps. Frank LoBiondo (R-2nd Dist.), Chris Smith (R-4th Dist.), Robert Andrews (D-1st Dist.), Frank Pallone (D-6th Dist.), Bill Pascrell (D-8th Dist.), Steve Rothman (D-9th Dist.), Rush Holt (D-12th Dist.) and Albio Sires (D-13th Dist.).

80% or them are Democrats, of course, including some of our worst, and I have to suspect that LoBiondo and Smith are RINOs; especially when you consider who also scored low alongside Rep. Garrett: Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-11th Dist.), and Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-7th Dist.). You don't get a Democrat until you tie him with another Republican for a 69% score. Clearly "bipartisan":

"Being green in the Garden State is a bipartisan issue and we applaud our delegation's environmental heroes, especially the leadership from Sen. Menendez and Sen. Lautenberg," Mottola Jaborska said.

Sounds like a lot of Jaborska to me.

---

Daily Record Letter - Little hope for this corrupt state

Every so often you see something that speaks completely for itself. The following is a letter to the editor of the Daily Record that really sums up the state of things in New Jersey. It is printed in its entirety.

To the editor:

Wednesday's Daily Record contained what was practically an inventory list of what's going wrong in New Jersey. In a single day, the following items appeared:

• The state, already up to its eyeballs in debt, borrows more money for school construction after previously running through billions for the same purpose without achieving the stated goals of that funding. Much of that money disappeared, unaccounted for.

• With great fanfare, Gov. Jon Corzine signs legislation to expand state level government-funded health insurance coverage. The fact that Jersey is broke seems of no consideration.

• Corzine expresses his desire to further expand government-funded health insurance to achieve universal health insurance. Again, the fact that Jersey is deeply in debt seems of no consequence to him or his party.

• Several hundred jobs left New Jersey from the pharmaceutical industry, supposedly a crucial employment sector for the state.

Days like that leave little hope for a turnaround in this mismanaged, corrupt state.

John Rice

Morristown

---

A Society of Whiners!

Former Senator Phil Gramm sparked a major controversy this past week by saying that we have become a nation of whiners. Now, of course from a political standpoint, this was a completely stupid thing to say. McCain did the expected two-step backwards and threw Gramm under the bus. Obama responded with his typical snide and condescending "we don't need another Dr Phil" comment that sounded less funny every time it has been played. But the real question is whether or not Gramm is right.

The Media

The media outlets in this country live to whine. The New York Times front page is less often filled with real news than it is with whiny pseudo-news opinion pieces. For example, with all of the constant drumbeat over warrant less wiretapping for terrorism, no one has yet to find a single person to come forward to declare that they were unfairly targeted. It's like listening to my children complain because one or the other is "looking at me". In addition, the television media has created so many cable shows that propagate constant bleating like a sheep on steroids. Need proof? Watch Keith Olbermann just once.

The Political Class

All whiners. There are no statesmen left in politics. What remains is a pack of political hacks bought and paid for by union and industry money. The only ones who go against the grain are the outright kooks (see Kucinich and Paul) who are so marginalized that they will never advance politically. Too many of the elected class serve to feed the media whining about the topic of the day. Chuck Schumer of New York has made a career of the Sunday Morning Whine. You see, it is much easier to get in front of a camera and blame someone else that it is to do something about it. Need proof? Every knows that the oil situation is a problem. Democrats refuse to act as they refused to act 10 years ago. So now, they will go home for the summer having done nothing. But you will find them in front of the camera every day moaning about gas prices.

New Jersey's leaders

I used a small 'l' because I really don't consider there to be a single leading figure in the state's political classes. There is far too many political positions in the state and the bureaucracy is downright silly. The entire state is completely unhappy and the leaders don't care. Why? Because between state workers unions and paying off inner city poor, they remain in power. They whine about worker benefits, rebates for people who don't pay taxes, free health care, national politics, global warming and drilling offshore. But they never whine about the leadership in Trenton that is driving families and business out of the state at a rate unheard of anywhere but Michigan.

Bloggers

Of course bloggers whine. We exist because we feel that we have little of no influence on the political process as taxpayers and voters. If you are of the working class in this society, you have no say. Why? There is no lobbyist organization advocating for you. So we blog. It is the one opportunity to have your voice heard beyond your circle of friend (where you really don't want to advocate anyway). Thank God we are in this country where blogging is robust and our freedom of speech is protected. Been to any good Chinese blogs lately?

Me

Hellooooo? This post is one big WHINE!

---

Meet the Bills: A10 (Reducing School Administrative Costs)

On a local (West Orange) email list, I am looking at bills that our representatives are voting on. It seems to me that we would want, for the most part, to ignore non-controversial bills and focus on bills that are subject to substantial debate. To that end, I'm going to look at places where my Assemblypeople, Assemblyman McKeon and Assemblywoman Jasey, differ from Assemblyman Vincent Polistina (Republican from District 2), since I know he was focused very much on spending reductions.

I've discovered that the legislature's Web site (http://www.njleg.state.nj.us) is a morass of JavaScript and link-unfriendly programming techniques, so I'll post links (at the end of this post) to the PDF documents as I've downloaded them and put them here. You'll need Acrobat Reader (it's free) to read the bills.

I'll start with bill A10: "Requires certain school districts to reduce per pupil administrative expenditures by 10% over three-year period, certain reporting by executive county superintendents of schools, and schedule for appointment of such superintendents."

McKeon and Jasey voted against it, Polistina voted in favor.

My questions about the bill are these:

• Our representatives were outvoted 4 to 1: The bill passed 62-15, with 3 abstentions. What were McKeon's and Jasey's reasons for voting "no" to this bill?
• Is West Orange one of the districts affected by the financial aspects of this bill?
• Is it reasonable to think that these districts can cut administrative costs by 10% without unreasonable degradation of school services?

Here is the Assembly Education Committee's statement to the Assembly about the bill, which I thought was easier to understand and more compact than trying to parse out the changes to the law that the bill entailed. I'll try to summarize each paragraph as we go along -- anyone who knows what it's saying better than I do, please correct me.

The Assembly Education Committee favorably reports Assembly Bill No. 10.

The Assembly Education Committe favorably reported on this bill, so McKeon and Jasey went against the recommendation of the Education Committee. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, of course, but it's worth noting.

This bill provides for a 10% reduction in the per pupil administrative costs of certain school districts below those of the 2008-2009 school year. The reduction will be phased in over a three-year period.

The wording "provides for" really means something more like "requires", as you see in the bill's title. So this bill cuts administrative costs by an average of 10% per pupil over a three-year period in some districts.

Under current law, a school district’s per pupil administrative costs may equal the lower of the district’s prior year per pupil administrative costs or the prior year per pupil administrative cost limits for the district’s region inflated by the cost of living or 2.5 percent, whichever is greater.

Follow that? Right now, before this bill is enacted, a district's administrative costs will be one of the following:

1. The same as last year.
2. The same as the last year's regional cost limits plus the cost of living.
3. The same as the last year's regional cost limits plus 2.5 percent.

If 1 is less than 2 or 3, stick with 1.
Otherwise, pick the bigger of 2 or 3.

I don't know which method West Orange used. If anyone does, please tell us in the comments.

Okay, that's background. Now what about this bill?

The bill provides that in the case of a school district with a 2008-2009 school year per pupil administrative cost limit calculated in accordance with the regional limits, the district must make an annual reduction in its per pupil administrative costs in such amount as to ensure that by the 2011-2012 school year the district’s per pupil administrative costs will be no more than 90% of the 2008-2009 per pupil administrative cost limits for the district’s region.

If your district went with 2 or 3 above, the district needs to cut costs by 10% by 2011.

For the 2012-2013 school year and each school year thereafter, a school district’s per pupil administrative costs may not exceed its prior year per pupil administrative costs. The bill does, however, maintain the authority of the commissioner to permit a school district to exceed its prior year per pupil administrative costs due to certain specified circumstances, such as an increase in nondiscretionary fixed costs.

After that, you can't increase your administrative costs unless the commissioner says you can because of "certain specified circumstances". If you go to the bill itself, you can see those specifics:

## increases in enrollment, administrative positions
## necessary as a result of mandated programs,
## administrative vacancies, nondiscretionary fixed costs,
## and such other items as defined in accordance with
## regulations adopted pursuant to section 43 7 of P.L.2004,
## c.73.

I don't have a copy of P.L. 2004, c.73, but hopefully you get the idea. If you look at the bill, you can see that the commissioner can only authorize increases similar to those that are allowed now -- but can't authorize any increases until the 2012-2013 school year.

The bill also directs each executive county superintendent of schools to file an annual report on the results of efforts to implement the new authorities delegated to him under the CORE legislation which became effective in April of 2007. The report would focus on issues associated with the promotion of administrative and operational efficiencies, the consolidation of school districts through the establishment or enlargement of regional districts, the coordination and regionalization of pupil transportation services, the promotion of in-district and shared services and programs for special education students, and other efforts to improve the operations and efficiencies of school districts within the county.

This appears to be an attempt to hold the county superintendent accountable for efficiencies, consolidation of services, and so on, by requiring an annual report specifically on those items.

Finally, the bill provides that an executive county superintendent of schools must be appointed in any county in which the position is currently vacant. The appointment must be made within 30 days of the bill’s effective date. The bill also stipulates that subsequent vacancies in the position of executive county superintendent must be filled within 120 days of the vacancy.

This apparently is a legal mandate for people to fill vacant positions. I didn't know this was a problem, but I guess it must be if they're adding it to the text of the bill.

Links to the bills are included below.

Here is the Committee's text and the full text of the bill. (Note that most of it is a quoted law, with edits embedded in the quote.)

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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'.

---

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....

---

Stop the NJ Paid Family Leave TAX! Act now and contact your legislator!

The legislature of the People's Republic of New Jersey (the United States first Socialist/Communist State) will be bringing paid family leave back on Monday. From an article in the Daily Record:

After several fits and starts, an effort to bring a paid family leave program to New Jersey may clear its final legislative hurdle Monday.

A vote on the measure is scheduled in the Senate, where Majority Leader Stephen Sweeney, D-Gloucester, and budget committee chairwoman Sen. Barbara Buono, D-Middlesex, are sponsors. If approved, Gov. Jon S. Corzine is expected to sign the bill shortly.

When speaking of the need for the program, the governor frequently refers to having his children around him when he recovered from a near-fatal car crash a year ago this week, saying people shouldn't have to choose between work and caring for family.

I am often brought to absolute tears laughing at our current Governor. His reason for supporting paid family leave (PAID as in PAID FOR BY HIGHER TAXES) is that when he got hurt speeding in a state owned vehicle without his seat belt, he had his children by his side. Of course, Corzine's estimated net worth is in excess of 600 million dollars according to the New York times. But what about the family he wants at his side?

1. Son Joshua works in commercial real estate in San Francisco
2. Daughter Jennifer runs a tea shop in Manhattan
3. Son Jeffrey goes to NYU

So Mr Governor, tell me how paid family leave would have helped your children be by your side when you were hurt? And why should the people of New Jersey have to pay for them to be there?

This entire bill is a bad joke that being perpetuated by Democrats attempting to buy votes in the next election. Too many voters in this state think about these benefits, hold hands and sing songs and skip through the meadow happily. That is until the next tax bill comes and they scream bloody murder. Here is an idea for the Democrats who want this bill so bad. Cut state workers by 10% and you will have plenty of money to pay for it.

It's time to hold your elected representatives accountable. Go to this link to find your legislator and let them no - STOP PAID FAMILY LEAVE TAX!

Senate and Assembly members be warned. You have seen various groups marching on Trenton in recent days. The citizens of this state have told you to stop spending and get your fiscal house in order. If you want to avoid the coming rout (REMEMBER FLORIO), you had better get serious soon.

---