July 2, 2007

MERKT: ONLY CORE PRINCIPLE MISSING FROM
CORZINE’S ‘CORE PRINCIPLES’ IS THE TRUTH

GOVERNOR NEEDS TO LET THE PUBLIC KNOW
WHAT ‘MONETIZATION’ REALLY MEANS

Assemblyman Richard Merkt today said that Governor Corzine needs to stop the double-talk and come clean with the public offering a detailed explanation of what he means by asset “monetization,” and how exactly that differs from a sale or long-term lease akin to a sale.
           
“The administration has been studying this issue for months and they have put language into the budget for this plan, so I think the Governor knows what he has in mind,” said Merkt, R-Morris. “It is time for him to put his cards on the table and explain to the public exactly what he means by “monetization.”
           
Last week Governor Corzine insisted he is not planning to “sell” New Jersey’s toll roads, but he refuses to explain the details of what he is planning to do with these state assets. The Governor released a list of core principles to guide his “asset monetization” plan, but not the plan itself.
           
Merkt noted that the Corzine administration put the word “sale” into the budget language in its own budget proposal, and it was disingenuous for them to veto out just the word “sale,” now that they see the immense public opposition to the plan.
           
“The public will not be fooled by the vocabulary games being played by the Governor,” Merkt said. “It is ludicrous to suggest that private investors will hand over billions of dollars to the state and get nothing in return. The suggestion that there is free money out there if we do this is balderdash. If we’re getting this money, we are giving up something in return.”
           
Merkt said that he stands ready to revise his opinion if the Governor places all the details of the proposal on the table, and can credibly explain how monetization differs from a sale or long-term lease. Until then, Merkt added, legislators and the public have every right to be suspicious.

#####

June 28, 2007

DeCROCE AND MALONE: CORZINE SIGNS DEMOCRAT BIG SPENDING, LITTLE TAX RELIEF BUDGET

BUDGET SIGNING CEMENTS LANGUAGE AUTHORIZING ACTION ON ASSET SALE THAT WILL GUARANTEE HIGHER TOLLS

Assembly Republican Leader Alex DeCroce and Republican Budget Officer Assemblyman Joseph Malone said the $33.5 billion FY2008 budget signed today by Governor Jon Corzine is an example of reckless spending and misplaced priorities that will put the state
in a deeper fiscal hole.
           
“This budget represents a continuation of the runaway spending policies of the past six years that are driving New Jersey to the brink of fiscal disaster,” said DeCroce, R-Morris and Passaic. “Not only can the state budget not support these massive spending increases, but New Jersey families can no longer afford the excessive tax burden this spending spree has created.”
           
The budget, which hikes spending by $2.7 billion, includes hundreds of millions of dollars in pork and politicized spending, and provides minimal property tax relief, also includes language that gives the Corzine administration a blank check to move forward with a sale of New Jersey toll roads – language Democrat legislators refused to remove from the budget last week.
           
Spending has increased by $11 billion in the past six years while the Democrats have imposed 94 new taxes totaling over $6 billion to support that spending. With this year’s spending increase the state is facing another structural deficit next year which the Corzine administration appears committed to closing with revenue from the sale of New Jersey’s toll roads guaranteeing toll increases, possibly for the next 99 years.
           
Republicans had proposed to cut over $1.5 billion in unnecessary or wasteful spending and submitted two resolutions calling for an additional $1 billion to be dedicated to property tax relief and $300 million to be distributed to school districts based on enrollment numbers. The also offered an amendment during the budget vote to strike the language giving Corzine a blank check to proceed with his toll road sale.
           
“We had an opportunity this year to really rein-in this wasteful spending and to restore some fiscal sanity to this budget, but instead this will make matters worse,” said Malone, R-Burlington, Ocean, Monmouth and Mercer. “This budget is short on property tax relief, short on school funding, and short on any realization that the bill for this excessive spending spree of the past six years will soon come due.”
         
DeCroce and Malone said that the Democrat property tax plan is not adequate relief and cannot be guaranteed beyond this year. That plan will provide just a 10 to 20 percent property tax cut for some taxpayers, with many taxpayers and seniors getting no additional relief.
           
Under the Republican plan, the $1 billion in additional property tax relief funding would be combined with existing property tax relief dollars to provide a 30 percent reduction for all seniors and families earning less than $200,000, with a 20 percent reduction for all remaining taxpayers.
           
The current Democrat budget provides a minimal 3 percent increase in school aid for most suburban and rural districts. This comes after nearly five years of frozen aid to those districts.
           
The enhanced aid to school districts proposed by Republicans would be based on the district’s enrollment size and would provide these school districts with an increase in funding on top of the already proposed across-the-board three percent increase in this year’s budget.

#####

June 28, 2007

DeCROCE SAYS BUDGET PAVES THE WAY
FOR SALE, LEASE OR MONETIZATION OF STATE ASSETS

WHATEVER THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO CALL IT,
IT GUARANTEES HIGHER TOLLS FOR YEARS TO COME

Preparations to implement a secret plan to sell, lease or monetize state toll roads received a green light today when Governor Jon Corzine signed the Democrat-approved state budget.
           
“The governor has made it abundantly clear that he does not want the people to know the details of this scheme, which will create a mountain of new debt and guarantee toll increases for years to come, until after the November election,” said DeCroce, R-Morris and Passaic.
           
“But the voters can be certain of three things. This plan will hurt the taxpayers, otherwise the governor and Democrats would roll out the details now. This plan will entail billions of dollars of new borrowing, which is downright reckless of the Democrats since they have already more than doubled the size of the state debt in just five years. To pay back investors, whether they be domestic or foreign, the state will have no choice but to raise tolls and taxes.
           
“All we have heard from the Democrats are lame excuses for the need for secrecy, the most preposterous one being an election campaign is no time for an in-depth discussion of such an important issue,” DeCroce noted. “That is an insult to the voters. The Democrats desperately want to delay the details until after the election because they want to ram this scheme through the Legislature during the post-election lame duck session. I can’t think of a worse time for this discussion to take place.”
           
DeCroce said “hypocrites” and “liars” are the best words to describe those Democrats who voted in favor of a budget that contains specific language giving the administration the power to spend whatever it needs to prepare for the sale, lease or monetization of state assets, such as the Turnpike, Parkway and Expressway, but now claim to be opposed to the sale or lease of toll roads to private or foreign companies.
           
“What they conveniently fail to say is whether they will oppose ‘monetization,’” DeCroce said. “After all, that’s the word the Governor and Treasurer continue to use to describe this monumental gimmick.
           
“Do the Democrats who supported this budget or voted against the Republican attempt to remove the language that gives the Corzine administration a blank check support ‘monetization’ as it has been defined by top Democrats? A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ would suffice.”
           
The Associated Press and other news media say the Democrat plan is to create a nonprofit company to oversee the toll roads and then issue billions of dollars in bonds based on guaranteed long-term toll increases.
           
“Any Democrat who refuses to say whether or not they will support this ploy is doing the taxpayers a great disservice.”
           
DeCroce said Democrats should also explain to the public how there is any real difference between “monetization” and the decision by former Democratic Governor James Florio to sell a portion of a state highway to the Turnpike Authority in exchange for $400 million to plug a hole in his budget.
           
“Selling assets from one state agency to another just to prop up a budget is hardly a new trick,” DeCroce said. “The public resented it when Florio tried it. That’s why the Democrats are so afraid to level with the public.”

#####

June 26, 2007

McHOSE: NEW JERSEY IS FAILING FAMILIES

SAYS STATE’S BORROW AND SPEND POLICY AND CUMBERSOME TAX BURDEN ARE CRUSHING THE AMERICAN DREAM IN NJ

Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose today commented on a Monmouth University poll that indicated New Jersey families are having a tough time keeping up with the cost of living even while their peers across the nation are enjoying greater prosperity.

“It’s a sad commentary on the State when nearly 6 in 10 New Jerseyans report that their families’ incomes lag behind the cost of living,” said McHose, R-Sussex, Morris, and Hunterdon.  “The tax burden placed on New Jerseyans by the State has created this situation.  It’s time to ease that burden by repealing taxes and cutting spending.”

The results of the poll, conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute, were sobering.  Eighty-nine percent of respondents said that their incomes were either falling behind the ever-increasing cost of living or remaining just even with it.  Over fifty percent also said that they had not put enough money aside to provide for their living expenses in the event of an emergency.

“What’s most troubling is that middle-class and working class families in New Jersey are being hit particularly hard,” McHose said. “Property taxes are up in the State over 35 percent and many families in rural and suburban areas are seeing their hard-earned tax dollars funneled to school districts across the State while their own children are forced to make do with less.”

McHose and her colleagues in the Assembly Republican caucus have been calling for a new and fairer school funding formula that would both reduce the property tax burden for communities that have not seen reasonable increases in school aid and would ensure that the education of every child in the State is valued and supported.  They have also advocated slashing wasteful spending, but a specific proposal they offered that included over $1.5 billion in spending cuts was ignored by the Democrat-leadership in
the Legislature.

“The Democrat power brokers in Trenton have increased spending over $10 billion and they have created 94 new taxes over the last six years.  Even so, the State faces a $2.5 billion deficit,” McHose said.  “Without spending restraint, the State’s economy will collapse under its own weight and our children will find that their futures have been mortgaged and that the American Dream is beyond their grasp.  Because of the Democrat penchant for spending beyond our means, their generation will be the first not to be better-off than their parents.”

#####

June 26, 2007

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...

Do the math; Fix school-aid formula
Editorial, Ocean County Observer, June 26, 2007

New Jersey's budget pain has subsided temporarily, as the economy has improved to a point where the governor and legislators could agree on a plan that does not increase the tax pain felt by Garden State residents.

That's nice.

But the most expensive failure in New Jersey history - the one that has sent property taxes soaring - has not been solved.

Instead we will continue to throw billons of dollars at the state's 31 Abbott school districts with nothing to show for the squandered funds except a tax inequity for the communities where 80 percent of the public school students in the state live.

Those are the 535 communities getting too little state school aid while the Abbott districts get too much.

The inequity was created by the Legislature to fix one found by jurists who said students were underachieving in poor school districts because not enough money was being spent on them.

More money has been spent on them for years, mountains of it, and they are still underachieving.

And in the process of sending 55 percent of the school aid to benefit 20 percent of the state's students, the remaining 1.1 million kids, 80 percent of the state's student body, are asked to get by with 45 percent of the aid.

An analysis done by Dover Township Tax Assessor Glenn Seelhorst for the 2006-2007 school year showed the Abbott districts getting an average or $13,760 a student in state aid while the suburban districts got $2,870 per student.

That's 4.79 times as much money being spent in the Abbott districts as in the average non-Abbott district in the state.

This preposterous imbalance continues because the Abbott districts have the political juice to continue it.

That's the sad story of how too much money is being wasted on too few students in too few districts, while districts denied their fair share of state school funds have to hike school taxes to make up the loss.

It gets worse.

If you consider all of the state aid to school districts for 2006-2007, not just direct school aid, the Abbott districts got an average of $19,526 a student and the suburban average was $3,776.

That's the kind of inequity any court should recognize as doing irreparable harm to the majority of the state's students at the same time it increases property taxes.

The Legislature could fix the inequity, could have fixed it for years.

But they failed and taxpayers across the state are paying for that failure - and will continue to pay for it.

#####

June 26, 2007

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...

State unions win, taxpayers lose – again
Editorial, Home News Tribune, June 26, 2007

In a backtrack that seemed symbolic, first the Corzine administration and then the Legislature last week agreed to give back a long-fought-for provision of the new contract with state employees. The much-ballyhooed four-year contract with the Communications Workers of America gave union employees significant pay increases; in return it required current employees and future retirees to contribute 1.5 percent of their income to help cover the cost of health benefits. The plan was approved by union members in April, but last week Gov. Jon S. Corzine announced that retirees who agree to enter a new and as yet rather ill-defined program called "The Wellness Program" will continue to receive free medical benefits. The retiree contribution had been one aspect of the contract that had caused union leader and former Corzine girlfriend Carla Katz to oppose the deal.

The explanations for why the change was made varied with the spokesman and the day, but it was made possible because the Corzine administration failed to live up to a provision in the contract that required it to set up a new employee-health program by next January. When it realized it could not meet that deadline, it asked the union to extend it by several months; the union apparently then demanded some concessions in return.

It's a sorry tale, all the way around.

The public ought to be able to assume its governing administration is capable, that if it agrees to a deadline in important contract talks it has determined it can indeed meet those deadlines, whatever delays might occur.

It also is true, however, that the ratification of the contract was delayed by snafus that were the union's, not the state's fault. The state nevertheless agreed, probably out of self-interest, to extend the deadline, apparently without strings attached. It might have been nice for the union to thereafter offer the same courtesy to the state. Likewise, if the state realized it was dealing with the sort of people who would look for any excuse to backtrack on negotiated agreements, it ought to have struck a better bargain: If you agree to a delay on one end, you ought to be able to agree to one on the other.

Or maybe the administration simply ought to have played a game of chicken with the union. Would the CWA really have opened itself up to renegotiations if the administration had not agreed to its blackmail?

We'll never know.

As for The Wellness Program, only time will tell if it makes a difference in people's lives or the state's budget. It will be nice if it leads to better health and lower costs, as the Corzine administration predicted in announcing the new contract. It ought to be remembered, however, that HMOs also promised to save money by keeping people healthier. It didn't work out that way.

At the very least, the Corzine administration ought to promise state residents that if The Wellness Program turns out to be more expensive, more popular and less successful than anticipated, it will head back to the bargaining table to renegotiate its terms.

#####

June 26, 2007

DeCROCE: STUDY SHOWS NEW JERSEY
UNAFFORDABLE FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES

STATE TAX AND FISCAL POLICIES IN NEW BUDGET ARE DOING
NOTHING TO IMPROVE THE PLIGHT OF THESE FAMILIES

Assembly Republican Leader Alex DeCroce today said that a new Monmouth University poll showing that New Jersey is unaffordable for an increasing number of families should come as no surprise, and that this year’s Democrat budget does nothing to make the state more affordable.
           
“Nobody should be surprised that after six years with 94 tax hikes, record property tax increases and a stagnant economy this state is becoming unaffordable,” said DeCroce, R-Morris and Passaic. “Families simply cannot continue to bear the increasing financial burdens that the tax policies of this state have placed upon them in recent years.”
           
According to the Monmouth University/New Jersey Monthly Poll, many of the state’s households require multiple incomes to keep afloat and fewer than half have saved enough money to cover their living expenses in an emergency. The poll reports that overall, 59 percent of New Jersey residents say that their family’s income is falling behind the cost of living.
           
DeCroce said a big part of this is the increasing tax burden in the state, but noted that the Democrats’ anti-business policies have driven high-paying jobs from New Jersey as well.
           
Democrat budgets over the past six years have increased state spending by $10 billion. They have funded the increase with 94 new taxes – including last year’s sales tax hike – and a 36 percent increase in property taxes.
           
These policies have also hurt job growth and income levels. Total private sector employment decreased by more than 7,900 jobs between 2000 and 2005 and we’ve lost more than 98,000 manufacturing jobs. High income jobs have also left the state in recent years. In 1990 New Jersey accounted for a 20 percent share of all pharmaceutical jobs in the nation and today that has dropped to a 13 percent share.
           
“The budget policies of the current administration and the Democrats who control the Legislature have done nothing to improve the affordability of this state,” DeCroce said. “New Jersey families need substantial tax relief and a stronger job market in order to improve their plight – and this budget provides neither.”
           
Republicans earlier this month proposed to cut just over $1.5 billion in unnecessary or wasteful spending and submitted two resolutions calling for $1 billion to be dedicated to a direct property tax relief program and $300 million to be distributed to school districts based on enrollment numbers.
           
“New Jersey families will continue to live on a ‘knife’s edge,’ as this report states, until we change course,” DeCroce said. “It doesn’t have to be this way.”

#####

June 25, 2007

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...

Oh, Grandma, what big no-bid contracts you have
Column, The Record of Hackensack, June 22, 2007

By ALFRED P. DOBLIN
RECORD COLUMNIST

For a lot of folks, if the sewers are in good repair, it does not matter if the contractor spread a little grease to get the job of laying pipe. But it isn't that simple.

IF A WELL-CONNECTED New Jersey law firm were hired to defend the wolf's actions in "Little Red Riding Hood," it would not focus on the wolf's unbridled desire to consume Little Red; instead, it would argue that said wolf, disguised in drag as Grandma, should be offered protection under the state's anti-discrimination laws.
The attempted consumption of Little Red is of little worth.

I'm not belittling the state's important new law that protects the transgender community from discrimination. It's a good law. I use it as a reference point. Give political players in New Jersey enough time and they will find a way to subvert something intrinsically good, turning it into something intrinsically profitable. I'm talking pay-to-play.

This week the borough of Wood-Ridge dismissed the need for enacting stronger pay-to-play reforms. It's not surprising. The mayor of Wood-Ridge is Paul Sarlo. Call him mayor. Call him state senator. Call him engineer. At least you can't call him Grandma – that is one of the few titles he doesn't have.

Sarlo is defending pay-to-play because it is more than the bread and butter of Bergen County Democratic politics, it's the foie gras on toast.

Bergen Democrats may challenge the state's pay-to-play laws, assuming they can find other county Democratic organizations in New Jersey to join in the legal challenge. After all, Jersey wolves run in packs and with PACs. The same law Sarlo referred to as "some of the most comprehensive pay-to-play reforms in the country" will probably be challenged by the very people that remain closest to Sarlo.

Given his comments about the current pay-to-play reforms, it will be interesting to see if Sarlo champions any future legal move made by fellow Democrats in Bergen or other counties to overturn pay-to-play. He flip-flopped on EnCap, why not pay-to-play?
The general argument against pay-to-play reform is that it infringes on the right of individuals to support candidates of their choosing -- and on freedom of speech. Who's against freedom of speech? Certainly not I.

Pay-to-play supporters say all that is needed is complete transparency -- if the public knows where the money is coming from and where it is going, there can be no corruption, no backroom deals, no political machine.

This is New Jersey. Political corruption in the Garden State is like ground contaminants. You may be able to put a cap on top of the soil, but unless you suck out all the toxins, they will spread somewhere else, out of sight until someone starts getting sick.
I agree with many powerful Democrats that voters don't care as much about pay-to-play as the media. For a lot of folks, if the sewers are in good repair, it does not matter if the contractor spread a little grease to get the job of laying pipe. But it isn't
that simple.

Huge development projects make some people a lot of money even if the project isn't completed. Whether condos rise from former landfills, attorneys get paid to argue in court and public relations firms get paid to argue with people like me.
Wolves eat Little Reds; that is what wolves do. Political wolves
like pay-to-play.

If the state's current pay-to-play reforms are successfully challenged in court, don't expect Wood-Ridge to take the lead
and draft a local ordinance preventing connected law firms and developers from contributing to either political campaigns or political action committees that can wheel donations across
the state.

In America, we have a constitutionally protected right to stand on
a soapbox, espouse our opinions (assuming they do not incite violence and hate) and be safe from prosecution.
That's called free speech.

In New Jersey, you can stand on a soapbox, but who builds that box and how you get a prime location for the box, well, that isn't free. And that's called pay-to-play.

The wolves are minding the hen house. The fact that the wolves are in drag is immaterial.

Alfred P. Doblin is the editorial page editor of The Record.

#####

June 25, 2007

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...

Corzine misses point on retiree health care
Editorial, The Courier-News of Camden County, June 25, 2007

The state fumbled again. Despite a union agreement, newly retired government workers likely will get free health care.

State negotiators scored a surprising victory in February when they earned workers' approval of a union contract calling for some government employees to pay more for health care.

Sure the victory was small -- workers would have to pay just 1.5 percent of their salary or pension to receive benefits for life -- but it was finally a step in the right direction.

Until Gov. Jon Corzine wrote the whole thing off this week.

Under the union contract, a Corzine-supported health-care plan would have to be in place by January. The administration decided it was not going to meet the deadline and allowed the free health care back on the negotiating table.

On Monday, the state Senate and Assembly budget committees quickly advanced plans bringing back free retiree health care, to the delight of union leaders.

"The teachers had something that we did not, so this gives us parity," said Rae Roeder, president of Communication Workers of America Local 1033, one of the largest state worker unions.

What about parity with the millions of New Jersey residents who struggle to pay their health-care bills?

We understand union leaders are trying to get the best deal for their members, but why are our elected officials allowing them to do so?

Just as union leaders work to protect their members, public officials should be working to protect the public.

That means using the six months remaining to pass a health-care plan that would satisfy the contract, then begin to work on getting teachers to pay for their health care after retirement.

But, with Corzine's approval, that's not going to happen.

"The change is de minimis relative to the overall scale of what has occurred," Corzine said in typical Wall Street gobbledygook.

The governor points out that dropping the pay-for-care requirement will cost the state only about $2 million over the four-year life of the contract.

He ignores the fact that the 4,000 or so workers who retire in that span likely will not ever have to pay for health care for themselves or their families. He also assumes state negotiators will again be able to convince union workers to support paying for their retirement health care.

That's not a safe assumption.

Once again, more of the same from Corzine and the rest of Trenton.

#####

June 25, 2007

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...

Talk asset monetization now
Editorial, The Star-Ledger, June 25, 2007

Gov. Jon Corzine is passionate about asset monetization. State lawmakers are just as passionate about getting re-elected. So jittery lawmakers got the governor to back off his push to use New Jersey's toll roads to make big money for the state budget. The details now won't come out until after the November election.

This timing makes excellent political sense for Democrats. They might as well paint tar gets on their backs if they have to campaign on a hugely controversial monetization plan that could radically alter state operations and finances for 50 years or more.

But the strategy of delay is a serious disservice to citizens. They are being kept unnecessarily in the dark.

Lawmakers and administration officials so far have given only vague hints about Corzine's vision for monetization. The term is Wall Street jargon that in this case means leveraging the New Jersey Turnpike, the Garden State Parkway and other state assets to produce buckets of cash. The money could be used to pay down state debt, replenish the road and mass transit construction fund and do other good works that Trenton cannot now afford.

Talk around the capital is focusing on creation of some kind of "public benefit corporation" to operate the toll roads. The not-for-profit company could issue bonds that could raise revenue for the state, financed by regular toll hikes that would, of course, have to be sharply higher than the level necessary to maintain those highways.

The nuances of a deal may indeed be "exquisitely complicated," as Treasurer Bradley Abelow says. But the general outline and the broad consequences cannot be so complex that they are beyond explaining to motorists, taxpayers and anyone else who has an interest -- which in this case is everyone.

If the governor insists on waiting until after the general election to outline even the broad strokes of his approach, there'll be little time to weigh the proposal. Monetization will become a rush job during the lame-duck Legislature in November and December.

That, too, is made to order for Democrats. Political strategists know the lame-duck session is a prime time for strong- arming difficult bills. Legislators who are leaving, and this year that includes 12 senators and a few members of the Assembly, can be easily swayed since they won't have to face the electorate.

Political expediency is not the same as good government. Corzine's monetization plan may or may not be the right move to help state government out of its financial hole. There is no way for anyone to tell right now, and that is the problem.

The governor should outline enough of his plan now to allow an intelligent discussion to begin.

#####

June 22, 2007

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...

Turnpike salesman
Editorial, The Trentonian, June 22, 2007

To many, the idea of selling the New Jersey Turnpike to a private company is an outrageous idea bordering on lunacy. And it may indeed be. But it’s hardly a revolutionary or unprecedented idea. America’s first toll roads were owned by private investors, for example, the Long Island Motor Parkway, which from 1907 to 1938 offered paying automotive customers a direct route between Flushing, Queens, and Hauppague, L.I.

Over the decades the trend swung toward public ownership. Now it seems to be swinging back. Private, profit-seeking companies are operating toll roads in Canada, Italy, France, Spain and Portugal.

Gov. Jon Corzine is not alone in salivating over the pot of gold he supposes would be found at the end of a New Jersey Turnpike privatization rainbow. Gov. Ed Rendell is likewise savoring the bundle to be made from selling the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

The idea isn’t popular in either state. It wasn’t in Indiana, either, but it happened anyway, public sentiment be damned. Gov. Mitch Daniels leased the Indiana Toll Road to a Spanish-Australian consortium for $3.85 billion. The proceeds are earmarked for transportation improvements.

The Indiana deal was preceded and accompanied by some tough state government economizing measures that enabled Daniels (President George W. Bush’s former Office of Management and Budget director) to persuade skeptics he could be trusted to be a prudent steward of the windfall.

The question is, could Corzine? The New Jersey state payroll is bigger than it has ever been, in both number of bodies and tax dollars, with costs substantially exceeding the Cost of Living Index. But despite astronomical long-term unfunded liabilities in public employee pension and health care costs, the governor has yet to act like the tough CEO he claims he once was in the private sector and promised to be as governor. Instead, he has acted pretty much like a run-of-the-mill, craven politician who’s fearful of riling up the public employee unions.

So could Corzine be trusted with a windfall from a Turnpike sale?

On the evidence we’ve seen so far, no. The money would soon be gone. and then what public asset would have to be sold off next? A state college? A state park?

#####

June 22, 2007

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...

State can’t afford to play Santa
Editorial, The Times of Trenton, June 22, 2007

For state legislators, Christmas used to come in the summer.

That's when they could secretly slip in spending requests for pet projects, usually just hours before the June 30 deadline for adopting the state budget.

Last year, lawmakers went hog-wild with their so-called "Christmas tree" requests -- racking up a tab of more than $300 million in pork to fund a wide range of local projects with state funds.

But what a difference a year makes. With the state going through its annual budget agita of making outlay match income and the U.S. attorney general investigating whether legislators personally benefited from special grants, the Christmas tree requests this year amount to only $112 million, less than half of what was approved last year.

But that is still too much. In fact, the whole concept of Christmas tree largess should be abolished. New Jersey simply can't afford it.

When we consider that the state faces an enormous $2 billion debt in funding its pension obligations and the highest property taxes in the country, we quickly come to the conclusion that we don't have the luxury of giving away a million dollars here and a million dollars there.

On the face of it, most of the special grants that legislators scored for their districts have been for laudable causes -- who can argue against spending taxes on a community center or a swimming pool for kids sweltering in a rundown urban area?

The problem is that the distribution of Christmas tree money depended more on who was asking for it rather than the merit of the request. Those with more influence in the Legislature had more leverage to get the lion's share of the handouts. And it was done behind closed doors at the State House.

Another problem, as we are now seeing, is that this discretionary money may have lined the pockets of some lawmakers, their families or friends. U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie last year issued a stack of subpoenas to trace how Christmas tree money was spent. The investigation has led to the indictment of state Sen. Wayne Bryant, D-Lawnside, on charges that he arranged no- work jobs for himself at state universities that received millions of dollars in special budget grants. Other legislators are squirming under the glare of the attorney general.

All this has led Gov. Jon Corzine and Senate President Richard Codey, D-West Orange, to clamp down on Christmas tree spending this year. They deserve credit for what they have accomplished, but the logical next step is to do away with it altogether. The state already has a system of administering aid to communities based on more objective criteria than what an individual legislator
deems important.
Let's face it -- the state can no longer play Santa.

#####

June 22, 2007

BECK ASSAILS DEMOCRATS FOR ‘PREPARING’ TO SELL STATE ASSETS WITHOUT CITIZEN CONSENT; CALLS ON CORZINE TO VETO THE AUTHORIZATION

Assemblywoman Jennifer Beck today assailed the Democrat-leadership of the Legislature for inserting a tiny, four-line clause into the annual budget that will grant an unlimited amount of money to the Governor to “prepare” for the sale of State assets.

“It’s remarkably insulting that this language would be tucked in at the end of a 291-page bill in an effort to squelch public debate on an issue with such wide-ranging implications,” said Beck, R-Mercer and Monmouth.  “That’s why I’m calling on Governor Corzine to line-item veto this provision until the Legislature has had the opportunity to review a concrete proposal of the sale.”

 The clause Beck was referring to would authorize the Governor “to prepare for the sale of state assets” and not simply study the idea as some Democrats have alleged.  She said the sale of State assets should be debated apart from any other measure or issue.

“Even as a member of the Transportation Committee, I have yet to see the Governor’s long-promised plan to sell our roads,” Beck said.  “New Jerseyans are skeptical of any policy involving the sale of New Jersey highways and, as a Legislator, I want to see a plan before money is spent on furthering an un-vetted, unapproved concept.

Before calling on the Governor to make good on his promise to conduct the peoples’ business in as transparent a manner as possible and to veto the language in question, Beck last night sponsored a budget amendment which would have removed it from the bill.  Democrats, however, employed a procedural tactic to defeat the amendment without considering the merits of the original language itself.

“Considering the magnitude of this issue, I think every official should be on record for or against preparing to sell the Turnpike and the Parkway.  Period.”

A copy of Assemblywoman Beck's amendment follows.

ASSEMBLY AMENDMENTS
(Proposed By Assemblywoman BECK)
to
ASSEMBLY, No. 5000
(Sponsored By Assemblyman GREENWALD )

SECTION 75 IS OMITTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

STATEMENT

The amendment deletes section 75 of the FY 2008 appropriations
bill which provides authority to the Executive to expend such sums
as may be necessary for legal and engineering fees, financial advisors and other consultants and services associated with, as
well as any other costs determined necessary in preparation for,
the monetization, sale, or lease of public assets, subject to the approval of the Director of the Division of Budget and Accounting.

#####

June 22, 2007

REPUBLICANS CALL ON CORZINE TO COME CLEAN
WITH TAXPAYERS ON TURNPIKE SALE PLAN

LANGUAGE IN BUDGET AUTHORIZES ACTION AS NEWS REPORTS INDICATE CORZINE HOLDING PLAN UNTIL AFTER ELECTION

Senate Republican Leader Leonard Lance and Assembly Republican Leader Alex DeCroce joined members of both Republican caucuses today in criticizing Governor Corzine for inserting language into this year’s budget authorizing work on
the sale of the New Jersey Turnpike and demanded that Corzine outline his asset sale plan before Election Day in November.
           
“This flies in the face of the promises of an open and
transparent budget process,” said Lance, R-Hunterdon and Warren. “This clause gives the Administration carte blanche to negotiate  a deal to sell off state assets and then, after Election Day, when the deal is a fait accompli send the proposal to the Legislature to be rubber stamped.”
           
“After six years of financial gimmicks, there needs to a full and very public vetting of any plan to sell a state asset.”
           
Lance and DeCroce said that it was inappropriate for such an important issue to be reduced to a single paragraph in a 291-page budget and it is even more disturbing that the Corzine Administration is reportedly planning to sit on the details of the proposal until after November 6.
           
“This is a major public policy decision with long-term implications for our taxpayers,” said DeCroce, R-Morris and Passaic. “It is simply not acceptable that a major decision like this be hidden from the taxpayers until after this November’s elections. The public has a right to know what the Governor has planned and where the Legislature stands on that issue.”
           
Lance and DeCroce were joined at the press conference by Senators Thomas Kean Jr., R-21, as well as by Assemblywoman Jennifer Beck and Assemblywoman Marcia Karrow.
           
Line 75 on page 291 of the FY2008 budget bill, A-5000, provides unlimited funding for “legal and engineering fees, financial advisors and other consultants and services associated with, as well as any other costs determined necessary in preparation for, the monetization, sale or lease of public assets.”
           
During the budget vote last night, Assemblywoman Beck moved that the bill be returned to second reading for amendment so that this language could be deleted from the budget. The Democrats voted to table her motion.
           
A story in this morning’s Star-Ledger reported that Corzine has decided to hold off on advancing the plan until after this year’s election because he is concerned that introducing the plan in the weeks before a legislative election might foul the political waters for Democrat candidates.
           
“The Governor and his allies know the ‘monetization’ scheme is
a stinker. So they keep delaying the actual details of deal,” DeCroce said. “Presumably ‘someday’ we will learn those details. And then the taxpayers had better be ‘prepared’ to take it on the chin ... again.”
           
“After the last six years, the public is right to be skeptical about any proposal to sell state assets, ” Lance said.

#####

June 21, 2007

DANCER BILL ALLOWING ‘JERSEY FRESH’
PRODUCTS TO BE SOLD AT TOLL ROAD
SERVICE AREAS PASSES ASSEMBLY

Legislation sponsored by Assemblyman Ronald Dancer that will allow “Jersey Fresh” and other state-grown agricultural food products to be sold at service areas along specific state toll roads was approved today by the General Assembly.
           
The bill, A-2034, provides for the sale and promotion of “Jersey Fresh” and other agricultural food products grown or raised in New Jersey at service areas along the Garden State Parkway, the New Jersey Turnpike and the Atlantic City Expressway. Products include fruits, berries, vegetables, herbs, dairy products, eggs and greenhouse products.
           
“As the Garden State, New Jersey grows some of the finest quality food products in the nation, most famously our tomatoes, corn, cranberries and blueberries to name a few,” said Dancer, R-Burlington, Mercer, Monmouth and Ocean. “With so many tourists passing through our state via our toll roads, we ought to give them the opportunity to sample some of the best our state has to offer.
           
“This bill will also give our farmers and businesses another venue for selling their delicious produce and dairy products. It’s a win-win situation,” he continued.
           
“Jersey Fresh” is an advertising and promotional program developed by the New Jersey Department of Agriculture  in 1983 to draw consumer attention to the availability of New Jersey farm products. Growers who register with the department’s quality grading program are allowed to use the “Jersey Fresh” logo on their packages. The logo indicates that the contents have been inspected and meet standards equal to or better than U.S. No. 1.
           
The bill now heads to the Senate for consideration.

#####

June 21, 2007

BECK SAYS PANTER BILL REGARDING
PROPOSED EARLE CIVILIAN APTS. POSES
FINANCIAL BURDEN,SECURITY RISK

Says bill approved today does not offer a real solution

Assemblywoman Jennifer Beck said bill, A-4272, sponsored
by Assemblyman Michael Panter, D-Monmouth and Mercer,
that passed the Assembly today offers no solution to the federal government’s plan to open 300 vacant apartments to civilian tenants at the Earle Naval Weapons Station.
           
The12th district Assemblywoman is concerned that in addition
to posing a tremendous financial burden on surrounding school districts that would be charged with educating tenants’ children, the U.S. Navy’s plan presents a grave security risk to the area
as well.  
           
Currently, a small percentage of the housing units at the complex are utilized by military families whose children receive educational services through the Tinton Falls School District. In 2010, the U.S. Navy plans to open 300 vacant apartments to civilian tenants which could result in an influx of potentially 500 students.  
           
“State and federal representatives need to join forces with the citizens of Tinton Falls and Colts Neck to prevent civilians from residing at the Earle military base,” said  Beck, R-Monmouth and Mercer. “The U.S. Navy must seriously consider the  grave security implications of giving 300 civilians unfettered access to a military base, particularly in light of the recent terrorist plot  uncovered at Fort Dix . In addition, it  would absolutely devastate whichever school district was required to educate those 500 new children.”   
           
Beck added that the legislation is  extremely divisive  to the two neighboring communities.

“This issue is a federal issue that  needs to be addressed by 
our federal representative,” said Beck. "Not only doesn’t it offer a  workable solution, but it pits one community against another
in order for Assemblyman Panter to score some sort of 
political advantage. 
           
“We should all, in conjunction with the citizens of Tinton Falls and Colts Neck, urge our federal representatives to find a solution. Devastating Tinton Falls or Colts Neck with another 500 students is not a solution, it’s merely shifting the problem,” Beck continued. 
           
Earle Naval Weapons Station provides logistical, technical and material support to the United States Naval fleet in areas ranging from combat sub-systems and retail ammunition management to packaging, handling and storage of all types of weapons
and ammunition.

#####

June 21, 2007

BECK JOINS MONMOUTH COUNTY COLLEAGUES IN
BIPARTISAN EFFORT TO SAVE FORT MONMOUTH

COSPONSORS RESOLUTION URGING BRAC COMMISSION
TO REVISIT FORT MONMOUTH CLOSING

Assemblywoman Jennifer Beck today introduced a resolution that urges the federal Base Realignment and Closure Commission to revisit its 2005 decision to close Fort Monmouth in light of a newspaper investigation this week showing that the closing will now cost twice what was originally estimated and that critical information on the impact of the closure was not available to
the commission.
           
“Given this significant change in the estimated cost of the closure, and a better understanding as to the impact this closure may have on our security, now would be a good time to revisit this issue,” said Beck, R-Monmouth and Mercer. “If the BRAC commission is going to make a major decision like this, it should be based on the best available information. It is now clear that the commission was not operating with the proper information in 2005.”
           
The federal Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission had recommended in 2005 that Fort Monmouth be closed by 2011. This week the Asbury Park Press revealed that the cost of closing Fort Monmouth has doubled from the originally projected $780 million to $1.5 billion, and that the 2005 BRAC decisions accelerated a known shortfall of scientists and engineers developing the technology to fight future wars.
           
“We are urging the federal government to take a second look at this decision,” Beck said. “Armed with all the facts now available, I believe the BRAC commission may want to reconsider its decision to close Fort Monmouth.”  

#####

June 21, 2007

BECK URGES ASSEMBLY STATE GOVERNMENT
COMMITTEE TO ADOPT BILL AMENDMENT
STRENGTHENING ETHICS COMMISSION

Assemblywoman Jennifer Beck today urged the members of the Assembly State Government Committee to adopt an amendment to legislation changing the composition of the Legislative Committee on Ethical Standards to close a loop-hole created by that panel that allows state dollars to be steered by legislators to their employers.
           
“It doesn’t matter who sits on the ethics commission if that panel abides by a recent ruling opening the door for a blatant conflict of interest among legislators,” said Beck, R-Monmouth and Mercer. “If we are going to make this ethics commission more effective, we must go beyond simply changing its membership and adopt meaningful standards of ethical conduct for the commission
to enforce.”
           
Beck noted that the ethics committee recently ruled legislators can, under current law, work to secure noncompetitive grants for their employers while ignoring similarly situated organizations in the process, as long as none of the money actually goes directly into their pockets as cash.
           
The committee was considering Assembly Bill A-200 which replaces the current panel which includes eight legislators and eight public members with a new commission that made up of eight former judges and prosecutors.
           
Beck urged the committee to adopt an amendment to the bill stating that, “No member of the Legislature shall use that office to seek a specific grant or loan for an employer, or any other source of personal or family income, if that grant or loan is directly awarded by the Legislature through the appropriations act or if the grant or loan is awarded through a program over which the Legislature or its members have substantial authority or control.”
           
Assemblyman Sean Kean moved the amendments but they were voted down by the majority.
           
“There do need to be changes to the membership of the ethics commission, but we cannot ignore the substantive issues as well,” Beck said. “Sadly, without reversing the precedent created by the recent rulings of the committee, the new committee members' hands will be tied behind their backs.”

#####

June 21, 2007

KEAN INTRODUCES LEGISLATION ALLOWING
FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO PRIVATE BEACH AREAS

In response to a recent Monmouth County Superior Court decision that limited public access to a specific Monmouth County beach, Assemblyman Sean Kean today introduced legislation that would make it easier for the public to use certain areas of privately-owned beaches.
           
A recent court decision limited the ability of the public to use a Loch Arbour beach owned by Jack Kassin which has been the subject of litigation over the right of the public to use the private beach area located above the high water mark.
           
Kean’s legislation, A-4434, would change the court’s analysis under the public trust doctrine. As interpreted by New Jersey courts, the public trust doctrine gives the public the right to use the land seaward of the high water mark and reasonable use of the dry sand areas of the tidal shoreline.
           
One of the factors presently used by the courts to determine whether a particular beach shall be accessible to the public is
“the extent and availability of nearby publicly-owned or
accessible beaches.”
           
“The availability of nearby public beaches should have no bearing on whether a private beach owner must make his or her beach available to the public,” explained Kean. “That should not be
a factor.”
           
The court ruled in the Kassin beach case that the availability of
the public beach club located next door to the Kassin property was grounds for barring the public from accessing the dry sand above the high water mark.
           
Kean said his bill is designed to make privately-owned beaches more accessible to the public, but would have no impact on public or private beach clubs. It also would not alter the ability of municipalities to charge reasonable fees for public beach use.

#####

June 21, 2007

DeCROCE: DEMOCRAT BUDGET PUSHING STATE
CLOSER TO THE BRINK OF FISCAL DISASTER

SPENDING ACCELERATES AS BUDGET HOLE GROWS DEEPER

Assembly Republican Leader Alex DeCroce today opposed the Democrats $33.5 billion FY2008 budget, which hikes spending by $2.7 billion, includes more than $200 million in pork, and provides minimal property tax relief, saying the spending plan is only pushing the state closer to a pending fiscal disaster.
           
“You continue to spend more money than we have and the spending in this budget exceeds revenue by $2.2 Billion,” said DeCroce, R-Morris and Passaic. “You have put New Jersey on a fiscal course that is reckless and irresponsible. Thousands of middle class families can no longer afford to live here.”
           
The Democrat budget, as it stands today, will total at least $33.5 billion – a $2.7 billion, 8.7 percent increase over last year. That includes nearly $190 million in new spending added to the budget just this week in the form of pork requested by legislators. Combined with existing pork projects proposed in the original budget unveiled in February, there is now more than $300 million of political pork in this budget.
           
DeCroce recounted the Democrats’ budget record over the past six years, including a $10 billion increase in spending, a 130 percent increase in debt, 94 new taxes, a 36 percent increase in property taxes, and the creation of a $5 billion structural deficit.
           
“This budget is going to collapse under its own weight,” DeCroce said. “Your inability to restrain your appetite for spending and pork has set the state on a path to fiscal ruin. I cannot support a budget that spends more, wastes more and is an election-year gimmick that creates a fiscal disaster next year and will kill New Jersey’s taxpayers.”
           
Republicans earlier this month proposed to cut just over $1.5 billion in unnecessary or wasteful spending and submitted two resolutions calling for $1 billion to be dedicated to a property tax relief program and $300 million to be distributed to school districts based on enrollment numbers.
           
“Republicans proposed a viable alternative to this spending spree,” DeCroce said. “Our plan would have eliminated wasteful spending and directed those savings to tax relief and school aid. Unfortunately this plan was never given serious consideration by the Democrat majority. That is unfortunate for our taxpayers.”

#####

June 21, 2007

MALONE, O’TOOLE AND McHOSE: DEMOCRAT BUDGET
SPENDS TOO MUCH AND PROVIDES ONLY MARGINAL
RELIEF FOR TAXPAYERS

PORK AND WASTE NOT ELIMINATED FROM BUDGET

Three Republican members of the Assembly Budget Committee today voted against the Fiscal Year 2008 budget saying that the proposal does not do enough to cut wasteful spending, includes too much political pork and fails to deliver substantial relief of overburdened property taxpayers.
           
Assembly Republican Budget Officer Joseph Malone, Assemblyman Kevin O’Toole and Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose today said the Democrats $33.5 billion budget, which hikes spending by $2.7 billion, includes hundreds of millions of dollars in pork will only add to the state’s budget woes in future years.
           
“Democrats have now increased spending by $10 billion in the past six years, and we simply cannot continue to sustain this rate of spending growth going forward,” said Malone, R-Burlington, Ocean, Monmouth and Mercer. “At some point the bill will come due for this spending spree, and the taxpayers will be the ones who lose out in the process.”
           
The Democrat budget, as it stands today, will total at least $33.5 billion – a $2.7 billion increase over last year. That includes nearly $190 million in new spending added to the budget just this week in the form of pork requested by legislators.
           
Earlier this month, Assembly Republicans proposed cutting just over $1.5 billion in unnecessary or wasteful spending and submitted two resolutions calling for $1 billion to be dedicated to a property tax relief program and $300 million to be distributed to school districts based on enrollment numbers.
           
“We had an opportunity this year to put a halt to the tax and spend policies of recent years and to cut back on millions of dollars in wasteful and unnecessary spending,” said O’Toole, R-Essex, Passaic and Bergen. “Unfortunately we are left with a budget that increases spending, is loaded with pork, and provides woefully inadequate help for our property taxpayers.”
           
“This year’s budget recklessly increases spending by billions while funding what little tax relief it provides through revenue from recently enacted tax hikes,” said McHose, R-Sussex, Morris and Hunterdon. “The taxpayers are being duped into believing they are getting tax relief, when in reality they are just getting back a portion of the higher taxes they have had to pay in recent years.”
           
The Democrat property tax plan is not adequate relief and cannot be guaranteed beyond this year. That plan will provide just a 10 to 20 percent property tax cut for some taxpayers, with many taxpayers and seniors getting no additional relief.
           
Under the Republican plan, the $1 billion in additional property tax relief funding would be combined with existing property tax relief dollars to provide a 30 percent reduction for all seniors and families earning less than $200,000, with a 20 percent reduction for all remaining taxpayers.
           
The current Democrat budget also provides just a minimal 3 percent increase in school aid for most suburban and rural districts. This comes after nearly five years of frozen aid to
those districts.
           
The enhanced aid to school districts proposed by Republicans would be based on the district’s enrollment size and would provide these school districts with an increase in funding on top of the already proposed across-the-board three percent increase in this year’s budget.

#####

June 21, 2007

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...

Stem cell plan grows too fast
Editorial, Gloucester County Times, June 20, 2007

At $450 million, New Jersey's plans to provide stem cell research grants are too big a risk with too much money.

A ballot question may go to voters in November to have the state borrow that huge amount for the grants over the next 10 years. The measure cleared an Assembly committee Monday.

This state is just too debt-strapped to OK new borrowing of this magnitude. New Jersey wants and in some ways, needs to be a leader here. But, so much may change in the next few years that it warrants holding off on such a big long-term commitment.

New Jersey has been drawn into raise-the-stakes efforts by states to attract stem cel