If Mitt Romney wouldn't choose Chris Christie, why should N.J. voters

In case you missed it, this op-ed that ran in The Times of Trenton and NJ.com earlier this week.

By Joshua Henne

With Chris Christie's lackluster record at New Jersey's helm, it's no surprise Mitt Romney passed on the Garden State's governor when selecting a running mate.

Ever a shrewd businessman when it comes to enriching himself, Romney knows he would get a poor return on a Christie investment.

In one regard, sure, it would have made sense, since they both look out for the "One Percent," believe corporations are people and share a worldview that promotion of the powerful, super-wealthy and politically connected should be put ahead of the well-being of children, senior citizens and middle-class families.

But it's also obvious that Christie's negatives would outweigh the positives on the national stage. That's why Paul Ryan got the call.

Clearly, Mitt Romney has made many mistakes on the campaign trail.

But he learned at least one lesson from John McCain's biggest folly of 2008. There's no way a presidential candidate could possibly pluck a first-term governor with more sizzle than substance - again.

The parallels between Sarah Palin and Chris Christie are remarkable: Both burst onto the national scene and quickly became addicted to the adulation. And both care more about personal brand, generating headlines and garnering attention than actual results. Neither are team players.

Christie relishes his reputation as a loose cannon.

At one point, his sporadic "straight talk" set him apart from the vanilla political speak we've become far too accustomed to - especially compared to his aloof predecessor. But no longer are these merely isolated incidents that spew from Christie's lips.  Rather, New Jerseyans are now subjected to a steady stream of hair-trigger, out-of-control antics unbefitting a public servant. So, it's a huge question mark as to whether Christie is even cut out for the rigors of a national campaign - where his record can't be glossed over and he'd have to actually answer for his substantial failures.

Once the rest of America looked past the bluster, hype and manufactured YouTube moments, they'd quickly see how New Jersey has unrelentingly trailed the country when it comes to jobs.

From an image standpoint alone, the fact that New Jersey's economy ranks a dismal 47th would remind voters that Massachusetts' economy was 47th in job creation under Gov. Romney.

In June, New Jersey's unemployment jumped nearly half a point, which was the largest monthly spike since 2009. The rate rose again in July to 9.8 percent, as the state lost another 12,000 jobs – 7,100 of which were in the private sector. Today, New Jersey's unemployment stands a full 1.5 percent higher than the nation's rate. This is the widest gulf from the national average since Jimmy Carter's first months in office.

Job creation and retention aren't the only areas where the governor has been a disappointment. Christie is the A-Rod of politics - lots of ego-driven, self-serving stats and self-promotion, but little by way of tangible benefits to the team (the residents of the state).

While Christie's policies have surely warmed the hearts of right-wing think tanks everywhere, they've had a chilling effect on New Jersey's families.

Property taxes have increased a staggering 20.4 percent since he took office, and one in every three children is now considered poor. New Jersey is also home to the second-highest percentage of mortgage loans in foreclosure in America, even though rates across the country are falling to their lowest levels since 2008. And due to Christie greasing the wheels for corporations at the expense of small businesses on Main Street, New Jersey's business climate ranking has slipped all the way down to 41st.

From the moment he lifted his hand off the Bible, Christie's been looking to trade up from the Trenton Statehouse to a grander stage. And he's used his constituents as stepping stones to accomplish this goal. Christie has taken his eyes off doing the work needed to make life better for New Jersey's families, and instead spends boundless time and energy on a magical mystery tour promoting his own objectives. With priorities like that, why would Romney ever want someone who cared more about personal ambition than doing the actual job at hand? As a running mate, Christie would have simply used the opportunity to audition for a future gig at Romney's expense - just as he's pursued regressive policies at the expense of New Jersey's middle class.

Yes, Christie and Romney share an agenda of looking out for those in the upper echelon of the economic strata while leaving everyone else in the dust. However, Christie's political baggage, fiscal shenanigans and abject failures would have been far too much of a distraction over the campaign's stretch run. Christie would bring virtually nothing to the table. Even worse, he would cut at the very heart of what little narrative Romney has left and torpedo his Hail Mary pass for the Oval Office. 

If Mitt Romney wouldn't choose Christie, why should New Jersey voters when he stands for re-election? The governor can only hope Romney wins the White House and hands him a plum Cabinet post. This way, Christie can enjoy a face-saving exit before he has to answer at the polls next year.

Joshua Henne is co-founder of White Horse Strategies, a communications and political consulting firm, and spokesman for One New Jersey. Find him on Twitter@JoshuaHenne.

* * * *

One New Jersey is shining a light on politicians who act against the best interests of New Jersey’s residents and who seek to divide our state for their own political gain. It is giving voice to the important issues that affect our daily lives. One New Jersey will closely monitor policy positions and actions of elected officials and expose their records on the issues that matter. You can follow One New Jersey on Twitter (@OneNJ) or search for “One New Jersey” on Facebook.

How Can I Help You?

From the E-Newsletter of Congressman Rush Holt:

Congressman Rush Holt

Among my most important roles as your representative is to serve as your advocate in your dealings with the federal government. Over the past year, I have:

• Secured $40 million for military suicide prevention efforts after an East Brunswick soldier’s suicide death exposed gaps in the military health care system.
• Helped a college graduate from South River appeal exorbitant fees that a contractor was charging to service his federal student loans.
• Helped a Kendall Park family resolve immigration problems after a paperwork error almost prevented their adoption of a child from overseas.
• Helped a Plainsboro man expedite his passport application in time for a long-planned family trip.

These are only a few of the thousands of Central New Jerseyans whom I am able to help directly each year. If you have encountered problems in your dealings with any federal agency, please let me know so I can help. You can reach me at 1-87-RUSH-HOLT (1-877-874-4658) or by visiting holt.house.gov/contact.

Tragedy in Colorado

As we watch the news from Colorado with horror and sympathy for the families, we should remember that each day more than 80 Americans are killed by gunfire, unnecessary tragedies. Arguments that gun safety legislation won’t help the situation seem to me illogical or blindly ideological.

Ensuring the Health of Pensions

In the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce last month, we held a hearing about the health of multi-employer pension funds – typically plans that are maintained by several employers and a labor union, such as those representing truckers or carpenters who work for various employers. These funds face many challenges today. According to IRS data, the proportion of multiemployer plans facing significant funding shortfalls rose from 23 percent in 2008 to 68 percent in 2009. Demographic trends also pose a threat: beneficiaries of these plans are generally living longer than expected.

Many difficult decisions about contributions and benefits must be made to restore these plans to health. Perhaps the biggest lesson is that we should never fall to the temptation to reduce contributions to pensions when the economy is healthy. A fund that may seem overfunded in good times can become dangerously depleted when the economy heads downhill.

Expanding Health Insurance and Creating Jobs

As the health reform law takes effect over the next few years, tens of millions of Americans will finally gain access to affordable health insurance. Some who question the law have, however, raised a concern: could the requirement that employers provide insurance for their employees and the costs of providing health insurance lead employers to cut employees from their payroll? In other words, might there be a tension between expanding health coverage and creating jobs?

Independent researchers at the Urban Institute recently studied this issue, and they reported good news. In the years after Massachusetts enacted a very similar health reform law, “there was no evidence of a disproportionate loss of employment overall, by type of job, or by type of worker, in Massachusetts under health reform relative to the rest of the nation.”

The researchers concluded, “Although there are differences in the details between the state’s health reform and the [national health reform law], the evidence from Massachusetts suggests that national health reform will not lead to job loss or stymied economic growth.”

Sincerely,

Rush Holt
Member of Congress

Romney Economics: Broken Promises: Romney's Massachusetts Record

Mitt Romney talks a lot about his time as a corporate buyout specialist, but you know what we don't hear very much about?

His experience as governor of Massachusetts.

That may be because he made promises to the people of his state during his '02 campaign that sound an awful lot like the ones he's making to the country today -- and he failed to deliver on them.

Just like now, he claimed his success in the private sector meant he'd be able to create jobs, cut taxes, and bring down the debt. He did the opposite.

Even as the rest of the country was enjoying a brightening economy, during Romney's term Massachusetts plummeted to 47th out of 50 states in job creation; manufacturing jobs declined at twice the national average; and for the first time since 1995, its unemployment rate was above the national average.

Long-term debt ballooned by more than $2.6 billion -- leaving the people of Massachusetts with the highest per capita debt of any state in the nation. State spending increased every single year, and Romney raised taxes and fees by $750 million per year -- leading to a higher state and local tax burden of $1,200 for every Bay Stater. Over his term, fees at public colleges skyrocketed by 63 percent, and during his first year, K-12 schools saw the second-largest percentage cuts, per student, in the nation.

All that in just four years.

Mitt Romney promised more jobs, less debt, and smaller government for Massachusetts based solely on his experience as a corporate buyout specialist. Turns out that being good at maximizing profits for yourself and your investors, but leaving companies bankrupt and workers without jobs, doesn't exactly prepare you to lead a state

"Since when did Massachusetts being 'whiter' than New Jersey matter in the discussion of a 2.5 percent property tax cap?..."

That was the question asked by Assemblywoman L.Grace Spencer (D-Essex) when she heard a comment by Department of Community Affairs Commissioner Lori Grifa during today's special session of the State Legislature to discuss property taxes.

Spencer issued a press release short after hearing the remarks which stated "Since when did Massachusetts being 'whiter' than New Jersey matter in the discussion of a 2.5 percent property tax cap? Ask Department of Community Affairs Lori Grifa for an answer. Because I have no idea what the relevance could possibly be.

"A property tax cap is being considered for the benefit of all property taxpayers in New Jersey, regardless of whether they're black or white. For Commissioner Grifa to interject race in this discussion was inappropriate and unnecessary, and shows a lack of understanding of the issues at hand."

You can read more about it >>>Here

The answer to the above question happens to be "it doesn't", but it just goes to show you that some people will say anything in order to tow the company line!

CRYAN - MASSACHUSETTS = HIGHER PROPERTY TAX HIKES THAN NEW JERSEY & MONTHLY STREET LIGHT TAXES

From New Jersey Assembly Democrats's Notes -

Assembly Majority Leader Joseph Cryan on Thursday morning noted statistics show Gov. Chris Christie’s proposed property tax cap would lead to higher property tax hikes in New Jersey than the state has seen the last two years.

Under the 4 percent property tax cap implemented by Democrats three years ago, New Jersey property taxes have increased 3.7 percent in 2008 and 3.3 percent in 2009, following years of increases hovering around 7.5 percent.

Christie wants to implement Massachusetts’ 2.5 percent constitutional cap, but according to Real Estate Economy Watch that cap led to a 4.8 percent hike in 2008 and a 5.1 percent increase in 2009.

“Gov. Christie’s slapped-together plan would drive New Jersey backwards in its efforts to control property taxes,” said Cryan (D-Union). “Gov. Christie and facts have never been friends, but the facts clearly show that his plan would lead to higher property taxes for New Jersey than we already have, and no one thinks that’s a good idea.”

The Democratic Legislature has approved a tougher new 2.9 percent statutory cap that builds on the success of the 4 percent cap.

Cryan also noted how the Massachusetts cap has led to, among other things, residents being charged $17 per month to keep street lights on in front of their homes.

“Gov. Christie would have us believe Massachusetts is a tax-free paradise, but under his plan, we might as well put coin slots on the street lights in front of our homes,” Cryan said. “This isn’t hysteria. This is reality, and that reality is that Gov. Christie’s plan is built on rhetoric, not facts.”

Brown tells AP he'll sometimes side with Democrats

Interesting article, will Scott Brown be the GOP's 41st vote against Obama or will he side with the liberal leaning people of Massachusetts and support many of the President's priorities ?...Time will tell.

From the ASSOCIATED PRESS -

BOSTON — Scott Brown says he has already told Senate Republican leaders they won't always be able to count on his vote. The man who staged an upset in last week's Massachusetts Senate special election, in part by pledging to be the 41st GOP vote against President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday that he staked his claim in early conversations with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Whip Jon Kyl.

"I already told them, you know, `I got here with the help of a close group of friends and very little help from anyone down there, so there'll be issues when I'll be with you and there are issues when I won't be with you,'" Brown said Thursday during the half-hour interview. "So, I just need to look at each vote and then make a proper analysis and then decide."

Asked how McConnell and Kyl responded, Brown said, "They understood. They said, `You can probably do whatever you want, Scott. And, so, just let us know where your head's at, and we'll talk it through, and just keep us posted.'"

The senator-elect did not elaborate on possible breaking points, though the Washington newcomer dismissed any suggestion he will relent once he starts working in the highly partisan capital.

"That's not pressure; pressure is what I'm going through right now," said Brown. He cited his efforts to complete a transition in 2 1/2 weeks, compared with the normal 2 1/2 months for regularly elected senators, while preparing to surrender his responsibilities as a state senator, become a Beltway commuter and resume his triathlon training.

He started Thursday with a one-hour bike ride and 1,500-meter swim.

"I'm trying to do it very well and be balanced and still get my workouts in," said Brown. "There's nothing wrong with having good conversation and debating. We do it here in our own caucus, at a smaller level. ... It's just a different building, really."

Brown beat Democrat Martha Coakley to win the seat held for nearly a half-century by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. The result rocked both the Democratic Party and the Obama administration, who viewed the seat as safe and Coakley as the pivotal 60th vote to preserve a Democratic supermajority in the Senate.

Read More >>> Here

Wednesday Weirdness III: GOP's Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate seat

Democrats are stunned at the defeat of Martha Coakley in Massachusetts last night, people have a strange and peculiar way of voting against their own best interests once again.

LA Times- Reporting from Los Angeles and Boston - In a stunning blow to Democrats, Republican Scott Brown on Tuesday seized the Massachusetts Senate seat once held by Edward M. Kennedy, handing the GOP the crucial vote that could thwart President Obama's far-reaching agenda, beginning with healthcare reform.

More broadly, Brown's epic upset signals the start of what could be an exceedingly tough year nationwide for Democrats, who are fighting to hang on to their majorities in the House and Senate in a political climate that seems to grow more hostile by the day.

"The effort to pass Obama's legislative agenda has grown more difficult, a flood of new Democratic congressional retirements may follow, and Republicans will certainly feel emboldened to expand their list of Democratic targets for the fall election," said Rhodes Cook, an independent campaign analyst.

With 99% of the vote counted, Brown, a state senator, was leading Democratic state Atty. Gen. Martha Coakley 52% to 47% -- a lopsidedness that only added to the humiliation for Democrats, who held the seat for well over half a century.

The scene Tuesday night at Brown's victory party in Boston was exultant. Shouts of "Shock the World" and "Yes, We Can" -- Obama's campaign rallying cry -- rang through the packed ballroom at the historic Park Plaza Hotel.

"Tonight, the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken," Brown told the cheering crowd. "This will be the beginning of an election year filled with many surprises. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, rest assured there's trouble everywhere."

The most immediate problem for Democrats is keeping alive Obama's attempt at a healthcare overhaul -- something Kennedy called "the cause of my life."

Read more >>> Here