Some in the GOP are heavily engaged right now in deflecting, diverting, and dismissing. It's "D" week, here in New Jersey! To get you to look OVER HERE at some SHINY OBJECT so you won't think about the loss of nearly half a billion smackeroos to our schools. Or why the Governor's dillydallying on applying for $268 million federal dollars to hire back some of our teachers so class size is more manageable, for those same schools. Or whether all this may represent a fundamental lack of support for public education, and a defunding of same. And while, yes, the government still has to go on whilst an investigation of the events leading up to the Race to the Top "mistakes," it's funny how some people didn't get the memo that New Jersey politicians look ridiculous right now trying to blame the feds for a Jersey bout of incompetence, and how others continue tough-talking, using terms like "reform" with no apparent sense of irony for what and who they're willing to sacrifice for their own "reform". Cases in point:
Even if the administration did everything right, the Obama administration was never going to give the governor a nickel," DeCroce said. "There was no chance he was going to get that money from D.C.
Hearings: They're coming. And they'd better be well-run, with tough questions asked. That's the direction I'm looking in. Screw the shiny objects. Keep your eye on the ball, NJ Legislature.
Retweet? @CoryBooker - do you have comment for @BlueJersey on ACLU charge of Newark transparency issues? - http://bit.ly/aSKiqg --- promoted by Rosi (link's corrected, thanks MJ)
Two weeks ago, amid news of layoffs in Newark, the City and its taxpayers took yet another financial hit: a high dollar verdict for a former police officer mistreated by the Newark Police.
A jury awarded Darren Nance $600,000, finding that the Newark Police had racially discriminated and retaliated against him.
Once lawyers tally up interest for this verdict, legal fees for his attorneys, plus the two private law firms hired to defend Newark, this case will likely cost millions.
Most cities rely on insurance to cover misconduct-based payouts, but Newark is deemed too high risk to qualify for a policy. Instead, these payouts come out of the pockets of Newark taxpayers. And for every case like Nance's that goes to trial, many others settle out of court behind closed doors.
It is difficult to know, therefore, the full financial impact of police misconduct on Newark taxpayers. We're also left in the dark about the details of the misconduct at the center of those cases, and whether the officers involved are sanctioned.
This is a shame because lawsuits - especially settled ones - can reveal dangerous practices in a department. And when individual officers are openly held accountable for the misconduct, it can deter others from engaging in similar acts.
To determine how much police misconduct cases cost Newark, and shed light on the underlying abuses, the ACLU of New Jersey has combed court databases, City Council minutes and other public records to find settlements.
We found that since January 2008, nine lawsuits by Newark police officers against the City were settled, with the settlements totaling $1,696,503. These cases primarily involve discrimination and retaliation.
Lawsuits from officers are just the tip of the iceberg. In that same time period, Newark awarded at least 23 payouts to citizens filing lawsuits over mistreatment ranging from false arrest to death in custody. Those, too, come with a hefty price tag - $766,617 from the 18 cases for which we have settlement amounts.
More cases are coming through the pipeline. We have identified 27 pending cases ordinary citizens have filed against the Newark Police since January 2008, and seven more filed by employees.
And there are likely others; since information about these lawsuits is not publicly disseminated or maintained in a centralized placed, we couldn't find every case filed against the Newark Police.
The costs go well beyond finances, of course. Lawsuits aside, police misconduct jeopardizes community safety and erodes the trust officers need from community members to effectively protect and serve.
But money matters, too, especially during a budget crisis. If the money Newark spends to defend and compensate for police officers' mistakes went towards reforms instead - training, technology, and resources for police - it would save money, lives, and public confidence in the long run.
The ACLU-NJ has an unwavering commitment to both government transparency and sound police practices. For the public's benefit, starting today, the ACLU-NJ will publish "the dirty dozen" of these cases on our website - representing some of the most egregious claims of discrimination, retaliation, beatings, and internal affairs corruption. We will release one a day for the next twelve business days. Many of these settlements have never before seen the light of day.
Darren Nance, however, got his day in court. He started his career as a Newark police officer in 1989 and encountered racism in the department after just a few months on the job. He spent the next seven years fighting for his rights, until the Newark Police fired him in 1996.
The jury verdict for Nance, along with these settlements, demonstrates that justice for police abuses can indeed come. But it also demonstrates a disturbing pattern: we see the abuses described in Nance's complaints from 15 years ago repeated in the settlements and pending lawsuits of today. The ACLU-NJ, which turned 50 this year, has fought the same kinds of abuses against Newark Police since our founding; change is overdue.
The only way to prevent the same mistakes, the same wounds, and the same payouts from the same stories is root out their sources. Otherwise, the citizens of Newark will continue to pay for bad apple officers who engage in abusive conduct and for managers and elected officials who fail to fix the underlying problems.
If the amnesiacs driving the current policy debate will remember, during the campaign, candidate Chris Daggett proposed a tax plan reform package.
At the time, I naively had hoped that Daggett's analytical policy based approach to politics would change the Trenton conversation and force media to engage the substance.
And for a fleeting moment in late September it did.
Daggett's plan ran in detail on page one Star Ledger, and the media actually engaged the substance of an issue.
But man was I wrong in terms of Daggett's ability to alter the conversation and inject more substance into media and the political debate.
It was amazing how quickly Daggett's plan fell into obscurity.
After just weeks, things reverted to the same old politics.
This only opened the door to the Christie "shock doctrine" (N. Klein) and retrograde ideological attack on all things public (while diverting attention away from the finance industry Wall Street types that caused the economic collapse at the heart of the state budget crisis).
Amazingly, while the rest of the country is in populist outrage over the greed of Wall Street and the obscenity of the taxpayer bailout while homeowners are foreclosed on and Main Street is ignored, the cowardly corporate NJ democrats and media have allowed Christie to stand reality on its head: attack teachers, librarians, and social workers as the greedy ones!
In addition to Wall Street anger, the whole world can see how failure to regulate BP led directly to the gulf oil disaster - and a mine explosion that killed 25 workers. (Tuesday nite, PBS Frontlinewill run a story about how cost cutting and lax safety regulation results in plane crashes).
But, despite this hugely visible reality of what happens when safety and environmental regulations are gutted for corporate profits, Chrisitie is allowed to target environmental regulations (aka "red tape") as the cause of the recession.
In the Orwellian Chrisitie world, it's not Wall Street, corporations, and deregulation that are to blame, it's greedy teachers, ibrarians, unions, and environmental regulations!
So, let's bring back the Daggett analytical approach to policy and re-examine key aspects of the Daggett plan.
This would include a focuse on broadening the sales tax to the currently untaxed service sector to better fit the shift in the economy. This would levy the burden on those in the financial sector that are most able to afford to pay.
Of course the Daggett plan would have to be modified to include restoring the $400,000 income threshold (no need to raise it to a million, which was a ploy to support a slogan "millionaire's tax") and get rid of his call for corporate and wealthy tax relief:
The candidate's plan, which he devised over several months using independent studies and state budget numbers, also would reduce corporate taxes by $750 million and income taxes on the state's wealthiest residents by $620 million. To compensate, Daggett proposed eliminating $1.6 billion in property tax relief programs like rebates.
Independent N.J. governor candidate Chris Daggett proposes overhaul of tax system
Republican Assemblyman Domenick DiCicco just sent us a press release about his new bill:
Legislators and other part-time elected and appointed public officials would no longer be entitled to taxpayer-funded health and pension benefits for their current positions under a bill recently introduced by Assemblyman Domenick DiCicco.
"Taxpayers have shared in the sacrifice to correct New Jersey's excessive government spending, but those of us privileged to hold elective office should be leading by example," said DiCicco, R-Gloucester and Camden. "Overtaxed New Jerseyans should not be paying for generous health and pension benefits to part-time public officials."
Obviously this has a certain attraction but I actually think it's reform in the wrong direction. A wiser reform would be to make state legislators full-time, with health benefits and defined retirement contributions (since it's not meant to be a lifetime job). That was we would be spared the spectacle of New Jersey legislators becoming paid "consultants" by firms seeking political advantage, or also serving as lawyers "representing" towns getting state money. It may be a satisfying to call legislators part-time workers but that illusion is linked to many conflicts of interest.
Is it just me, or am I beginning to notice that NJ's legislative structure is screwed up.
For one thing, New Jersey is the only state in the union in which assemblypersons and senators represent the same number of constituents. I find it a bit disheartening that there are 40 districts, and each district has 1 senator and two assemblypeople representing the same number of people. For one thing, it only gives larger constituencies in each district a voice.
This is why I propose splitting each legislative district into A and B and having one assemblyperson for each. For example, the 14th District as is will have one senator, and Assembly District 14A will consist of one assembly person representing Hamilton and West Windsor while Assembly District 14B will consist of one assemblyperson representing Plainsboro, Cranbury, South Brunswick, Monroe, and Jamesburg. This way, smaller constituencies within a district have more of a chance of being represented (especially true for ethnic minorities, who tend to be extremely scattered throughout the state).
Another major issue is that in the state legislature, a bill is voted on in the Senate first. This extremely baffles me to no end, is this some kind of statement that public policy in New Jersey is top down. Since senators sometimes serve longer terms (2-4-4), have larger constituencies, and a smaller membership, they are not as close as the assembly is to the constituency, and thus, legislation tends to be top down in New Jersey's setup.
I think these two ideas as a package would be great for politics in the state. It would create smaller targetted constitencies and public policy could be more easily influenced by the grassroots.
The cracked of each district into A and B assembly districts would actually be good for progressives. The only exception would be District 1, in which it would be likely that 1 district would contain Cape May County and Somers Point and 1 district would contain Vineland, Millville, Maurice River, Buena, and Buena Vista, which means it would be 1 conservative district and 1 progressive district.
However, progressives could benefit everywhere else, especially in the following districts:
District 2 - If Atlantic City and Pleasantville are included together in one of the A or B districts, we would have 1 strong D district and 1 swing district.
District 8 - One assembly district could contain Evesham, Mount Laurel, Moorestown, and Hainesport. The latter two are boomtowns which are trending Democratic. However, the other assembly district would be hopelessly Republican
District 11 - One such idea would be to create one district that includes Asbury Park, Long Branch, as well as the swingier West Long Branch and Eatontown (remember, Pallone wins in this area), and leave the southern Monmouth shore teabaggers in the other.
District 12 - Could very well include 1 district with Democratic East Windsor and Hightstown, swingier Marlboro, Manalapan, and Eatontown, and heavily Republican but small Millstone. Could be a split LD!!!
District 13 - Could be a split LD, with one Democratic assembly district (dominated by Old Bridge) and one Republican assembly district (dominated by Middletown)
District 16 - The southern part of the LD could be a Democrat AD, if Somerville, Hillsborough, and Montgomery (all of which went for Obama) are included. However, the northern part is too wealthy for its own good and would be a safe AD for the GOP
District 21 - The eastern part of the legislative district, centred around Union County, could definitely hold a Democratic AD (many of the towns are wealthier, but have gone D in the past)
District 39 - The eastern part of the district, closer to the GWB has a lot of areas which can potentially go D, as has happened in the past and could be a good Democrat AD. The western and north central part, however, would still be an R AD.
All in all, this could result in a net gain of 7 seats for the Democrats.
I'm as frustrated as the next progressive about the seeming lack of progress on getting Health Reform passed. I was upset that we're not going to get a single payer system, I was upset that we're not gong to get a public option. As an economist, I know that we're sending the wrong price signals to everyone involved with the employer-sponsored system we have inherited.
That said, what is emerging right now -- an adoption of the Senate bill by the House with agreement on how to fix it -- is what it's going to take to get HCR done in the current political environment.
This is not something trivial, not insignificant, and very complicated. We're talking about 1/6th of our economy here, not a resolution to create a postage stamp
So I'm amazed at all those who continue to harp on the point that this bill is 2700 pages long. As if the length of the legislation is related to it's merits. It's too long, too much government, too much legislation -- so it must be bad.
Since when did we measure the worth something by the page count?
Diana Taylor was walking home from a computer repair shop when two police officers abruptly stopped her on the street. Without any reason, they demanded she identify herself. Taylor provided her given name - Christopher Moore.
"You're right; I owe you 10 dollars," one officer told the other, "It is a man."
She was stopped, Taylor realized, to settle a dehumanizing bet about her gender.
As onlookers gathered, the officers went on to call Taylor derogatory names and make crude inquiries about her sex life. Then, without justification, they roughly cuffed and arrested her, taunting her the entire time. Once at the precinct, they scrambled to find something wrong on her record (it was clean) and then demanded she accept a ride home. During the two-block trip, the officers threatened to sic gang members in her neighborhood on her if she filed an internal affairs complaint.
Their threats couldn't stop Taylor. Still, it took countless calls to internal affairs before someone finally took down her complaint, and they still didn't take her seriously. The department then issued her summonses "after the fact" on false charges of littering and disorderly conduct.
This lawsuit on Taylor's behalf is the ACLU-NJ's third in as many years alleging misconduct by Newark police. We hope this case will finally penetrate the department's culture of impunity, and in particular, we hope Newark Mayor Cory Booker takes notice.
Governor Corzine told us on Blue Jersey radio that he'd sign the Party Democracy Act, and on this Friday afternoon, he did:
Governor Jon S. Corzine today signed legislation that makes certain changes to current laws governing the activities of county political party committees. The bill, S-930/ A-1904, requires these committees to adopt constitutions and bylaws, calls for specific information concerning committee members to be filed with the county clerk and eliminates fixed terms for committee members and chairs.
"This legislation is another step forward in our efforts to bring more transparency and ethics to government," said Governor Corzine. "I thank Senator Weinberg for her commitment and advocacy on this important issue."
As a result of the legislation, constitutions and bylaws of each county committee are required to be posted on the organization's respective website and copies of the documents must be provided to the county board of elections for website display. In addition, anyone elected or appointed to membership on the county committee is entitled to receive a copy of the constitution or bylaws and that request must be filled within 48 hours of receipt.
"This law is a reform of the party structure here in New Jersey," said Senator Loretta Weinberg, (D-Bergen), who is a long-time advocate of open government. "As the prime sponsor of this bill, we designed it to ensure that there is an even playing field within party organizations with openness and due process. I want to congratulate Governor Corzine on signing such an important piece of legislation - one that now brings our state one step closer to full accountability on all levels of government."
Under the bill, municipal clerks would be required to file an official list of committee members with the county clerk within 20 days after a committee's first meeting following the primary election. This list would be considered a government document available to the public upon request.
In addition, procedures for removing committee officers who are unwilling or unable to serve, is required to be included in the organization's constitutions and bylaws. A member's resignation must be accompanied by a notarized letter of resignation signed by that committee member, or, if the resigning committee member fails to provide such a letter, by a notarized letter stating that the resignation has occurred. The chair of a county committee would have a continuing duty to report changes in the committee membership, with appropriate documentation, to the county clerk.
Although it reads in the release like a minor thing, I believe the PDA is an important reform and significant step forward for progressives.
What will John Adler's stunning opposition to the health care public option cost his own constituents? Here's a 2-minute action item: Call Rep. Adler's District Offices and let him know what his decisions might cost you: Toms River DO: (732) 608-7235, Marlton DO: (856) 985-2777. It's not too late for him to change his mind, if he hears from you.- - - promoted by Rosi
Throughout the recent health care debate, New Jersey's Democratic delegation has stood firmly on the side of progressive reform, committed to varying degrees to the public option. Representatives Pascrell, Holt, Payne and Sires - four men from very different parts of the Democratic coalition - have all signed on to the FireDogLake pledge, promising to vote against any bill that does not include a public option health plan which is "available nationwide, on day one, and accountable to Congress and the voters." Representative Rothman has clearly stated that the public option is the key to reform, in order to "to keep insurance companies honest." And Representatives Andrews and Pallone are co-sponsors of House bill 3200, which would write exactly such a public option into law, and as sub-committee chairmen, vital players in the reform debate.
This leaves only one Democratic Congressman unaccounted for. John Adler. And Adler isn't just quiet on the public option, or unwilling to take a specific pledge. He's come out as one of its leading Democratic opponents.
"The bill that's coming through the House, with or without the public option, isn't good for America," Adler said matter-of-factly. "We have Congressional Budget Office projections of a trillion-dollar increase in costs that will have to be borne by taxpayers or insurance purchasers; meaning businesses and households. Either way, that's a cost we can't afford."
An interesting analysis was released recently by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for each and every Congressional district in the United States that clearly spells out the benefits of the aforementioned House bill 3200, aka America's Affordable Health Choices Act. So in case you're wondering what John Adler's opposition to progressive health care reform is costing his constituents, this will give you an idea. Without this bill, in the third Congressional district alone...
• 14,600 small businesses will not get tax credits for 50% of their health insurance costs
• 12,000 seniors will remain stuck in the Medicare Part D "donut hole"
• 1,330 families will go bankrupt due to health care costs (2008 figure)
• $56,000,000 in unpaid medical bills will pile up for doctors and hospitals (2008 figure)
• 47,000 people will remain uninsured
This is the bill that John Adler tells us "isn't good for America." It's time for the people of the third Congressional district to tell John Adler that what isn't good for America is his work on behalf of his paymasters in the insurance, health, and pharmaceutical industries to derail real reform that millions of Americans are relying on, including tens of thousands who elected him to office last November.
Frank Pallone took questions about health care reform in an increasingly heated room for more than 3.5 hours last night, at Piscataway Municipal Hall. Overhead lighting was harsh and the room filled to capacity, with people standing eight deep in back, and down both sides.
So many, that Pallone ran 3 full sessions, emptying out each time for a new crop of people. Each session, its own rhythm. The first had the most organized agitators from the teabag movement. Their antagonizing started outside, even before the doors were opened. Section 2, the most substantive questions - on both sides - and people willing to listen to the answers. The weary third session - most people waiting hours hours to get in - the largest, and the most concerned with preventive care, and with the side issue of abortion.
It was also the only session with many young people.
I was glad to see them show up. Particularly given this, noting that young Obama supprters are AWOL from the health care fight. And that's messed up. This is signature legislation from the Obama era and change still needs the life, drive and energy of young progressives.
Most of the people walked into the room with opinions gelled, looking for that microphone. Pallone, even-tempered even when the room got shouty, sometimes veered into the wonky.
Substantive questions were on mental health parity, fraud prevention, impact of public option on the deficit, and impact on the disabled. But those were high points.
Cuckoo. Liars. Nazis. Socialists. "He hasn't even read the bill!" You heard this, too. People angry, mistrustful of government, certain they're getting bamboozled. A stunning number expressing complete indifference to people without care.
Here's what surprised me:
I expected misperceptions, even deliberate misdirection. Got that. I wasn't prepared for so many of the anti-reform agitators fully believing that what HR 3200is, is single-payer health care.
Make the distinction more effecitvely between the public option and single-payer. Dial down the anger (both sides, I hope).Get me some young blood. And then, maybe we got ourselves a ballgame.
Pallone has another Town Hall TONIGHT 7pm, Red Bank Middle School, 101 Harding Road, Red Bank, 07701. Rush Holt's is Wed 7pm: Middletown Arts Center, 36 Church St., Middletown 07748. John Adler's Wed 4pm: Energy Expo, Burlington County Inst. of Technology, Westampton Campus, 695 Woodlane Road, Westampton, 08060. And Adler needs your help on a course correction.
One of my quotes from an interview during the 2009 Hoboken mayoral election that I continue to get questions about is that I refused the label and suggested that there were no real reformers running even though several people were using that label. The questioners point out that I have a very long reformer resume and could legitimately claim the label. I replied that in terms of politics I don't always know what someone means when they call themselves a reformer. So instead of more labeling, I suggest we explore "political reformer" and start with a few questions:
1) What is a political reformer
2) What isn’t a political reformer
3) How can one tell the difference?
The most obvious and laziest definition of reformer is one that advocates for reform. Another is "one who, when he smells a rat, is eager to let the cat out of the bag". When we think of "reformers" in terms of politics we think of someone who works to "abolish abuse or malpractice", "correct evil, abuse, or error", and/or "to give up harmful or immoral practices; persuade to adopt a better way of life". Core in all these definitions is that a reformer is part of a cause that is focused on changing behavior, modifying conduct, and establishing a standard of acceptable practices that are evenly applied to all. As a politician a reformer it is about a consistency between words and deeds, new ideas and fair practices.
The flip side is that a reformer is not about maintaining the status quo or say they have to “fight fire with fire” as a justification for engaging in the same behavior as the corruption they are running against. A reformer knows that real change is about behavior and so does not engage in the cult of personality. They know and their actions reflect that changing the players without changing how the game is played is meaningless.
Telling the difference between a real reformer and someone who calls themselves that to get votes is difficult. So here is a list of questions to ask to help. Think of them as the political reformer version of the certified public accountant exam or a certified political reformer exam. The extra credit questions are the more extreme of the category.
Politics as Usual (Hypocrisy)
1) Has the politician been accused of doing something illegal, unethical or immoral and their response to point fingers, i.e., something along the lines of “well, so-and-so did it”?
2) Has the politician labeled an opponent as corrupt and then engaged in the same or similar behavior themselves?
3) Have they ever justified their own behavior by split hairs between what is legal and what is ethical?
4) When they make a mistake excuses instead of apologizing?
5) When asked about an appointment or hiring on their campaign or office do they make some reference to you “not understanding” or “its politics”?
6) Do they avoid discussions of specific process or behavior changes they will make to reform the system?
7) Extra credit question: if they are in office, do they refer to their campaign for reelection or higher offer as “grassroots”?
Cult of Personality (Bully and Blame):
8) When they give specifics of what reform they are fighting for is it about a person or group of people?
9) When faced with a financial or other difficult policy issue did they blame it on the poor or make scapegoats of a nebulous group (i.e., seniors, unions, “the machine”, Wall Street, government, etc.)?
10) When the politician was questioned about illegal, unethical or immoral behavior did they attack, vilify or name-call the person who asked, claimed the questioner is attacking them or some other defensive technique?
11) Have they or their supporters used the internet or any other media to make personal attacks on anyone?
12) Extra credit question: when questioned about their behavior from within the movement, have they or their campaign ever called out the questioner for not being a “real reformer” or for “attacking reformers”?
If when assessing a politician with the above questions and you answered “yes” to five or more, they are a RINO (reformer in name only). Sorry. But don’t get mad at them. There is a rule of thumb that the life expectancy of reformer politician nationally is 5 years. That's a national average so you can bet that some places it is as low as 6 months or even 6 days. The primary reason sited for how a reformer "turns bad" is fear, fear of losing. The fear of losing is stronger than the desire for change or their commitment to the cause. Some proffered getting distracted from the mission, which is the number one cause for failure amongst non-profits. But a review of interviews with fallen reformers have them saying things like "well, you have to get elected", "it was political", "it is how things get done", etc. We've all heard it from Marion Barry to Rod Blagojevich and we’ll certainly hear it again and again if we refuse to learn from our mistakes.
How do good intentions get so easily supplanted by a need to win? It is because the politically active (contributors, operatives and volunteers) "have a one strike and you are out" perspective. This creates desperation in reformer candidates to win or they won't have a chance to make the changes they so sincerely desire. Then people start whispering in their ears about how they can't win if they don't do this or that, and how it can't be that bad because look what so-and-so is doing. The temptation becomes too strong for most and they start taking short-cuts, trimming corners and bending the rules; winning by any means necessary.
Real reform starts with the politically active. We need to say it is better to lose than to win at any cost - and mean it. If we really want reform and to elect reformers, then we need to support and vote for the behavior we want to represent us. We need to not be distracted by pretty faces and prettier platitudes. We need to remember that two wrongs don't make a right. We need to have a zero tolerance policy on hypocrisy and bullying. We need to stop participating in the cult of personality and become devotees of the competent.
A nun once told me that living the precepts of Christ - turn the other cheek, love they neighbor, etc. - is the hardest job in the world. Being a political reformer may be a close second.
Walk into the Camden County Democratic headquarters in Cherry Hill, and you will almost certainly meet nice, motivated, bright liberals like yourself who merely want to win races for Democrats. No shadowy Sopranos-esque organization here. This diary addresses the question of whether the Camden County Democratic Committee and overall organization need reforming and new leadership. My criteria for reform is as follows. Regardless of political party or ideology, any organization that exchanges favoritism in exchange for financial gain is indeed ethically compromised. Further, any politician who votes on bills directly related to his or her employer must not be able to do so, and any political broker who is not held accountable to the general public, particularly voters, should not have unchecked power. You can see where I'm going with this.
So - njnewsgrrl weighs in on the big picture, with some very specific course corrections to suggest. What do you think, Blue Jersey? - - promoted by Rosi
While explaining the atmosphere in the Garden State following the indictment of 44 individuals on corruption charges, an NPR reporter appearing on PBS's "The News Hour" last week compared the situation to the launch of the space shuttle. When it first began, everyone was interested, everyone was talking about it, and it was a big deal, she said. But now, we're so used to it that we just shrug our shoulders and go about our business.
Sad, but true.
We've been dealt this deck of cards. And it's pretty embarrassing, not to mention harmful to our state and communities. So what can we do to change the situation? How can we make it better?
First, we have to accept the fact that there are too many people who profit - financially or otherwise - from the current system. These people run the system, whether they be elected officials, political operatives or lobbyists. And they have zero motivation to affect the kind of substantial, systemic change that our state really needs. Sure, they will talk about reforms in the law enacted in the past few years. But clearly, the little that has changed is not enough.
Second, we will have to accept that as long as politicians need money to get elected, there will be corruption in the system. A functioning system of publicly financed elections is crucial to reducing the influence of money in politics. There have been noble efforts to institute such a system, but it's been very, very slow in development. Wonder why? See the previous paragraph.
What we really need is a complete overhaul of state law to reduce the influence of, for lack of a better term, skuzzy politicians, in our government. In an ideal world, that overhaul would do the following:
This guy Chris Christie is just not ready for prime time. "Pay-to-play" is basically legalized corruption and New Jersey reformers have worked hard to limit the practice. So I was surprised when Chris Christie complains he can't accept pay-to-play money in today's Philadelphia Inquirer:
McGreevey's executive order banned the state from awarding contracts of more than $17,500 to companies in which high-ranking officials contributed more than $300 to a gubernatorial candidate or state or county party organization... McGreevey's order covered contributors who controlled 10 percent or more of companies getting state contracts. Corzine included any partner, officer, or principal of a vendor firm, further limiting the number of people who would be willing to contribute to gubernatorial campaigns.
...And that has Republican gubernatorial candidate Christopher J. Christie in a lather.
"This governor is a hypocrite. He signs this executive order which he doesn't live by, yet he forces everybody else in the race to live by it," he said.
Let's get this straight:
Democrat Jon Corzine took no corrupt pay-for-play money in 2005 and will not in 2009.
Republican Doug Forrester took no corrupt pay-for-play money.
Recently that public trust has not always been kept. Over the last eight years, government spending on contracts has doubled to over half a trillion dollars. Far too often, the spending is plagued by massive cost overruns, outright fraud, and the absence of oversight and accountability. In some cases, contracts are awarded without competition. In others, contractors actually oversee other contractors. We are spending money on things that we don't need, and we're paying more than we need to pay. And that's completely unacceptable.
Last year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, looked into 95 major defense projects and found cost overruns that totaled $295 billion. Let me repeat: That's $295 billion in wasteful spending. And this wasteful spending has many sources. It comes from investments and unproven technologies. It comes from a lack of oversight. It comes from influence peddling and indefensible no-bid contracts that have cost American taxpayers billions of dollars.
"Contractors actually oversee other contractors" is a major part of what wrong in Deepwater. Obama's new presidential memorandum should help, but Congress also needs to act:
Promoted by Jason Springer: Bill W gives us the scoop on what's going on with the Bergen Democrats. What do you think?
Bergen County Democratic Committee members should be receiving a correspondence from Mike Kasparian outlining his platform for party reform should he be elected BCDO Chair. Skipping to the meat of the matter, here are the six points he lists : (retyped by me, so I'll take credit for any typos)
1. Mandatory ethics training: Our reform package must start with Ethics Reform. All BCDO Officers, members of the Executive Committee, staffers and candidates must receive mandatory ethics training similar to that which Governor Corzine mandated for all State Commission and Advisory Board members.
2. Internet Accessibility of BCDO Information: Posting on the Internet of all County Committee members names, along with all BCDO by-laws, governing documents and notices.
3. Independent Audit: We must conduct an independent third party audit of BCDO finances and make that information available to all members.
4. Open and Fair Conventions: All special conventions will be admnistered by an impartial third party, such as a retired member of the judiciary.
5. Charitable Outreach: BCDO should establish a fund in support of outreach organizations, such as Meals on Wheels, YMCA/YWCA and the Red Cross as examples.
6. A Committee Process: In accordance with our by-laws we must conduct regularly scheduled sub-committee meetings and seek the input of the full County Committee on all issues including fundraising, candidate selection, and policy issues.
Now, you can count me as skeptical of a candidate who seems to be drawing the support of all the wrong people, and lacking the support of many of the right people, but if he did manage to implement these six ideas, and if they were carried out conscientiously and fairly, I think it would be a good step in the right direction. I know, though, that's a couple of big "ifs".
One I find somewhat puzzling is the "Charitable Outreach" business -- it doesn't seem to me something that a party organization would typically involve itself in. Do other County Committees do this?
What's that you say? November 5th is a long way off? We have about 4 weeks left in THIS election?
Absolutely RIGHT! There's STILL time for ALL of New Jersey's Democrats with safe seats and deep pockets to get off their butts and open their wallets in support of the WHOLE ticket!
(This started out as a comment in Thurman's excellent diary The Senate Race that Wasn't http://www.bluejersey.net/show... but it went a bit far afield from his immediate subject......)
..........I wish Lautenberg and Stender had used their financial advantages and momentum to call upon ALL of the NJ congressional delegation to make it a CRUSADE to put win in ALL the contested seats.
Frank and Linda will likely win; but they could have been far more aggressive and won for the whole state instead of just focusing on their own elections.
The same applies to all the congressional incumbents like Rothman and Pallone et al who have safe seats. Why aren't they all all over the state stumping for every challenger??? Makes no sense to me. Is that considered "rude"? Is there an unwritten law against congresspeople supporting challengers to sitting members???
We could have had a statewide reform movement that would have garnered another half a million new voters to vote for Barack and to create a downticket landslide that just might have swept folks like Tom Wyka and certainly Dennis Shulman into office. As it is they are still fighting long odds
I really do wonder about the intelligence, competence and motivations of the NJ Democratic party.
Do they REALLY want to win big and REALLY clean up/transform our state? Or is it just about maintaining a corrupt status quo that puts more money into the hands of the same individuals and corporations that have been raping us forever?
Yeah sure, I'll vote Democratic across the line.....but only because the Republicans would be even worse for New Jersey.....but is that really the best we can do???
It's time the people of New Jersey, MOST of whom will back a progressive reform agenda that provides fundamental root to branch change, literally TAKE OVER the state Democratic party from the morally/ethically corrupt hacks who are now in control.
Nothing less will do the job.
The people, institutions and corporations who have been living "high on the hog" off of the hard work and sweat pf NJ taxpayers have to be thrown out of office and thrown into jail (where possible). There is no more "fat of the land" for them to live off of.
The conventional wisdom is that the recently announced federal probe into the dealings of former Corzine friend, Carla Katz, with the local CWA which she had led, will score United States Attorney Chris Christie political points with Republicans, Independents, and some anti-Corzine Democrats. Governor Corzine has been battling to keep emails between Katz and himself from becoming public and Katz is already under investigation by the national CWA for alleged improper conduct. Christie's federal investigation promises more negative Katz headlines, more unfavorable publicity for the Governor, and positive publicity for Mr. Christie. However, Mr. Christie's possible gubernatorial ambitions may actually be undermined by this probe.
This past week, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey issued a decision in In the Matter of the Appeal by Earle Asphalt Company, a case involving the owner of a road construction business and his political contribution to the Monmouth County Republican Committee in June 2007. Walter Earle III, owner of Earle Asphalt Company, made the contribution at the behest of former State Senate President John Bennett, failing to realize that the contribution could bar him from obtaining business from the State. After obtaining counsel and being advised that his contribution might violate "pay-to-play" laws, Mr. Earle requested that the contribution be returned. Meanwhile, Earle Asphalt Company submitted a bid to the New Jersey Department of Transportation for a roadwork contract involving Interstate 195. It was the low bid and therefore Earle Asphalt would have been awarded the State contract. However, the Department of Treasury informed the company that it was disqualified from award of the contract because of Mr. Earle's June 2007 political contribution. Mr. Earle appealed this decision and took the matter to court.
