APP EDITORIAL: Don't scrap full-service gas stations

Show of hands, who wants to pump their own gas?? I sure don't and the editors at the Asbury Park Press feel the same:

A bill will be introduced in the state Assembly next month that would lead to the elimination of full-service gasoline within three years. The bill's sponsor, Declan O'Scanlon, R-Monmouth, says the bill would eliminate inconvenient waits at the pump.

Drivers in New Jersey may soon be pumping their own gas if a bill to be introduced next month by Assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon, R-Monmouth, becomes law. 

Show of hands: How many of you would prefer to have an attendant fill up your tank for you, particularly in lousy weather? If you raised your hand, you're in the majority. A 2012 Fairleigh Dickinson University/PublicMind found that 63 percent of New Jerseyans want to keep full-service pumps. 

Under O'Scanlon's proposed bill, which would be similar to self-service legislation introduced by state Sens. Gerald Cardinale and Paul Sarlo, the act of pumping your own gas would be decriminalized and self-service islands would be authorized. Gas stations would be required to operate at least one full service gas pump island for three years, and gas retailers would be allowed to charge a lower price at the self-service pumps. 

The main reason cited by O'Scanlon for changing the law is that it would eliminate inconvenient waits at the pump. Others supporting a change say it would help reduce gasoline prices — a claim that has not been born out by the 48 states that have self-serve. 

If long waits at the pump are a problem at some service stations, the solution is a simple one: take your business to a service station where you don't have to wait. Gas stations aren't monopolies. Consumers have plenty of choices....

Continue Reading...

APP Editorial: Freeholders bear some blame for Lucas fiasco

If you have been keeping tabs on the Andrew Lucas land deal, the Asbury Park Press published a very important editorial today, which blames Freeholder Director Lillian Burry, Deputy Freeholder Director Gary Rich and the all-Republican Freeholder Board for the land deal between Manalapan's Republican former Mayor, Andrew Lucas and Monmouth County. Last week Lucas was just found guilty on all 11 counts for illegally obtaining the property.

This is what Democratic candidates for Monmouth County Freeholder Larry Luttrell and Joe Grillo have been campaigning on for months, this editorial collaborates what they have been saying all along and is important for their campaign.  The good ol' boy network that has been running the County for years needs to be stopped and ethical behavior by those we elect needs to be reinstated.

From the APP:

Former Manalapan Mayor Andrew Lucas was convicted last week of falsifying tax returns and fraudulently obtaining funds to purchase a piece of property that netted him nearly $1.2 million in farmland preservation taxpayer money. 

Andrew Lucas

The convictions, for wire fraud, loan application fraud, making false statements to the Internal Revenue Service, aggravated identity theft, obstruction of a grand jury investigation and falsification could land him in jail for decades when he is sentenced in January.

While officials at the county and local level were quick to distance themselves from Lucas, the whole fiasco could have been avoided if the Monmouth County Board of Freeholders had long ago barred elected and appointed officials from participating in the farmland preservation program. In classic “closing the barn door after the horses have left” fashion, the freeholders did not get around to that until April.

The farmland preservation funding Lucas received for his 97-acre Diamond Developers at Burke Farm sparked controversy as some politicians rightly insisted he should not have applied for the money while he was a sitting officeholder in Manalapan.

After purchasing the farm, Lucas applied for and received $694,800 from the state’s Farmland Preservation Program, $277,920 from Monmouth County’s open space fund, and $185,280 from Manalapan. Under the deal, Lucas was allowed to keep the farm but gave up any right to develop 96 of its 97 acres. While Lucas faces jail, Freeholder Director Lillian G. Burry, who championed the deal from the beginning, now finds herself backpedaling at breakneck speed.

Burry said last week that the “guilty verdict against Andrew Lucas ... has nothing to do with the freeholders, the county or the farmland preservation program.” Lucas, she said, stands alone in that it was he who falsified the tax returns and fraudulently obtained funds to purchase the property.

Burry was not alone in acting as cheerleader for the deal. Manalapan Mayor Jordan Maskowitz and Committeewoman Susan Cohen also supported it from the beginning.
We are not buying Burry’s self-absolution....

Continue reading

APP editorial - Brewer v. Middletown: Don't contest benefits ruling

I don't know how many of you saw this Asbury Park editorial last week concerning the Brewer v. Middletown case, in which the NJ Superior Court Judge Lawrence M. Lawson, ruled that Middletown must release employees' personal health insurance information. His ruling established that this personal info was  indeed public information and the release of it is applicably to all of Monmouth County. The APP in its editorial, urged Middletown to comply with Judge Lawson's ruling and not contest it.

When the ruling was announce three weeks ago Middletown officials still wasn't sure if they would comply with it or not, leaving open the possibility of appealing Judge Lawson's decision to a higher court.

According to an Asbury Park Press article published on the 15th, the Middletown's Township Committee intended to discussed or comply with Judge Lawson's ruling at its January 21st (moved to the 23rd) meeting. I was present for that night's meeting and nothing publicly was said about the case. I've since learned that the case was discussed during Executive Session that night.  I'm wondering if a decision was made as to whether or not they will comply or appeal and when they will announce it.

Appealing the case to a higher court would be a huge waste of time and tax dollars, they will surely lose at the appellate level also. And if Middletown loses the appeal then the appellate court decision will have application statewide, whereas  the Jan. 7 decision applies to only Monmouth County.

I believe Middletown has 30 days from the time of the ruling to comply or appeal. Time is running out.

Below is the APP editorial "Don't contest benefits ruling" for those that haven't read it as of yet:

"When taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill for the medical benefits of part-time public officials, they have a right to know who is drawing those benefits and how much they cost.

That common-sense position now has the force of law, thanks to state Superior Court Judge Lawrence M. Lawson’s recent ruling that Middletown, which provides a group health plan for its employees, must disclose the names of those who are enrolled, and the cost and type of coverage elected by each employee.

A township resident, Lee Brewer, made a request under the Open Public Records Act for the names of everyone, including employees, retirees and appointees, who received health coverage from Middletown since Jan. 1, 2008.

While Brewer got most of the information he requested, the names of the people receiving the health coverage were redacted. He sued to get the employees’ names, job titles and the coverage they selected.

Lawson’s decision should move the state one step closer to prohibiting self-insured towns from providing medical benefits to part timers.

Reforms in 2010 prohibited new part-time government employees and elected and appointed officials enrolled in the State Health Benefits Plan and State Educators Health Benefits Plan from receiving health benefits.

In Monmouth County, more than half the municipalities are not enrolled in the state plans. In Ocean County, 13 of 31 are not enrolled, and thereby exempt from the health benefits prohibition for part timers.

There may be legitimate reasons for towns, school districts and authorities to either self-insure or participate in joint plans with other towns rather than enrolling in a state health benefits plan. Hiding the identities of part timers still collecting health insurance isn’t one of them.

Middletown officials plan to discuss whether to appeal Lawson’s ruling or comply with it at the Township Committee meeting on Thursday, Township Attorney Brian Nelson said.

They should comply and let Lawson’s decision stand as a wake-up call to other self-insured municipalities that would seek to keep the same information about their employees confidential.

Middletown’s arguments are specious at best. Township officials say they are concerned about violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which can carry substantial federal fines for violations such as revealing an employee’s personal information.

Nobody is asking for a list of conditions for which employees sought coverage. And the township’s argument failed to address precisely which elements of HIPAA or ERISA specifically prohibit the release of the health care information requested.

Lawson’s court ruling was a victory for all taxpayers on the hook for health care benefits for part-time employees in their towns. The sooner more information is available about who’s feeding at the trough, the sooner such abuses will end."

Star Ledger Editorial: Our thin-skinned governor

Evidently the big guy can dish it out but he's a little sensitive when it comes to himself. The below editorial appeared today in The Star-Ledger and hits the nail on the head when it comes to Christie's hypocritical and contrived outrage over a comment made by his Democratic rival, Barbara Buono that he insists was targeted towards his girth :

In a daring political stroke, Gov. Chris Christie is making a strategic pitch to capture the obese vote in New Jersey.

The strategy is designed to make fat people mad at state Sen. Barbara Buono by claiming that she poked fun at the governor’s weight.

“For me and for other folks across New Jersey – many folks – who are challenged by their weight, the fact that someone running for governor would make derisive comments about someone’s physical appearance is really beneath the office she is seeking. I’m disappointed that she’s done it.”

The catch is this: Buono (D-Middlesex) did no such thing. This is a fake tantrum, a ploy that is so cynical you almost have to admire it. 

The offending comment came during a Buono speech when she criticized the governor for making himself the star of a $25 million ad campaign that is supposed to encourage visits to the Shore. 

Buono criticized his shameless self-promotion with Sandy relief money; not his weight.
Here’s what she said: “I don’t know about you, but seeing Chris Christie frolicking on the beach is not going to drive me to go to the Shore.”

That’s it. You may have expected a reference to the governor’s weight, to his Lap-Band surgery, or to the jelly doughnuts he wolfed down with David Letterman. 

Buono, unlike Letterman, has never criticized the governor over his weight. She was objecting to his shameless self-promotion in the TV campaign, and the fact that the governor’s team agreed to pay $2 million extra for a campaign that ensured the governor would personally appear in the advertisements. 

That kind of self-promotion by a governor is illegal in some states, including New York. And remember, to pay for it the governor dipped into a pot of money earmarked for Sandy victims, many of whom remain in desperate shape.

It was special to hear the governor say that Buono’s comments are “beneath the office she is seeking.” This is a guy who loves to roll in the mud, who calls his critics numbnuts, liars and idiots. 

Who knew he could be so thin-skinned himself?

Video: Gov. Christie says, 'we know what' Buono meant by beach 'frolicking' comment New Jersey Gov. Christie was asked for a second day in a row about comments made by his November election opponent, Democratic state Sen. Barbara Buono that he interpreted as being a joke about his weight. Buono says her comment were simply a criticism of his appearance in the 'Stronger than the Storm' television commercials aimed at attracting business to the Hurricane Sandy ravaged Jersey Shore.

 Here's what Baraba Buono actually said:

 

Salon.com: New York Times endorses plutocracy! The Grey Lady calls "coziness with the moneyed class" an "asset," in an editorial supporting Cory Booker. Seriously

I happen to be supporting Frank Pallone and his candidacy for the U.S Senate and while I don't have anything personal against Cory Booker or the New York Times, I have to agree with this scathingly critical assessment of what just "... may be the most nauseating endorsement you'll read this election cycle ".

Salon.com's David Sirota writes the following review of the New York Times endorsement of Cory Booker for the U.S. Senate seat left vacant by the passing of Senator Frank Lautenberg:

If you happened to have read the New York Times’ opinion section this weekend, you may have noticed you were told that the U.S. Senate – the body comprised primarily of millionaires – apparently needs more lawmakers who are very close to the wealthy.

Yes, despite every member of the upper house raising huge amounts of campaign money primarily from the American aristocracy, and despite the fact that legalized bribery results in votes that consistently defend the aristocracy’s economic interests at the expense of everyone else — the grey lady’s editorial board implored voters to see Senate candidates’ all-too-close relationship with America’s uber-rich not as something suspicious or repugnant, but as something commendable and worthy of reward.

This was the powerful message in the Times’ house editorial this weekend endorsing Newark Mayor Cory Booker’s candidacy in New Jersey’s upcoming special U.S. Senate election. Citing Booker’s success engineering a $100 million donation to Newark schools from Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg (but conveniently not mentioning the ugly controversies surrounding the donation), the newspaper concluded its endorsement with a slap at Booker’s opponents – one that in a single sentence revealed everything you need to know about the elite media’s royalism (emphasis added):

Some of Mr. Booker’s opponents are trying to denigrate those assets — his fame, his ability to work with Republicans, his coziness with the moneyed class.

You read that correctly: According to the Times, being “cozy with the moneyed class” should be seen by voters as an “asset” for an aspiring senator – one the Times insinuates shouldn’t dare be “denigrated” by other candidates.

Of course, the Times is fairly accurate in declaring Booker as “cozy with the moneyed class.” If anything, in fact, it’s an understatement – Booker is one of Corporate America’s most loyal and obedient Democratic politicians.

APP: Judge's email ruling abets petty politics

In today's editorial section of the Asbury Park Press, the APP has chimed in on the petty politics that passes as governing these days in Middletown.

But before getting to the opinion piece, here's a little background info of my own to fill you in:

Middletown's former mayor, current Township Committeeman Tony Fiore, prior to having himself appointed to the Middletown Library's Board of Trustees last month, requested the township clerk to file a "blanket" OPRA request for 18 months worth of correspondences (both private and public) between library advocates Linda Baum and Melanie Elminger and library director Susan O'Neal. He was seeking information as to how members of the public could have "confidential" library information before that information was made "public" during library board meetings.

In response to this blanket email Ms. Baum, who is a candidate for Township Committee and a frequent contributor here, filed a temporary restraining order lawsuit against Fiore's request, seeking the "right of review" of any emails released to ensure that proper care was given while redacting personal information.

Last week Judge Larry Lawson denied her request stating that the emails in question were of public nature and therefore should be released without review of Ms. Baum, entrusting library board attorney Armen McOmber to properly redact information that was private in nature.

In the days since the release of the emails, Ms. Baum's privacy concerns have been validated. Mr. McOmber was not diligent in complying with the law by making appropriate redactions before the release of the emails. He failed to redact person information such as Ms. Baum's phone number and personal work products.

This clear failure demonstrates why a person with a privacy interest should have a legal right of review and why Ms. Baum's suit was not frivolous in nature.

Now here is what the APP had to say:

You expect local politicians now and then to engage in childish antics. What you don’t expect is for a judge to encourage such behavior. 

But that’s what happened last week when Superior Court Judge Lawrence Lawson ruled that emails between Middletown Library Director Susan O’Neal and Township Committee candidate Linda Baum are public records and should be released. 

Lawson should have refused the request, given the absence of any real public interest.
Middletown Committeeman Anthony Fiore turned to the courts to seek release of the emails and other written correspondence, including those regarding library business sent from O’Neal’s personal account, after he suspected library staff was giving information to the public before the library trustees were aware of it, in order to create “political theater.”
The emails may have been poor form on the part of Baum and O’Neal, but hardly an act so egregious that the court should get involved. There is no hint of illegality in the emails Fiore was seeking, and he seemed less motivated by principle than by politics. 

Fiore insisted, however, that his request was made in the public interest: “To me, (the emails were) undermining the board’s position, even though it didn’t have an opinion at the time,” he said. 

Really? How can an opinion be undermined before an opinion is even proffered?
Judge Lawson should have kept out of it. 

Baum said through her lawyer that she would not appeal. That’s good news. Somebody has to be the grown-up.

APP Editorial: Make storm aid fully transparent

In today's Asbury Park Press there is an excellent editorial regarding governmental transparency in regard to Hurricane Sandy relief aid.

As the editorial states regarding Governor Christie, you can't rip into others (the National Flood Insurance Program) unless you yourself are willing to be held to the same standards instead of  "a weak-willed bureaucrat."

As the editorial also states Christie isn't the only one that has issues with transparency, in a paragraph that all too well describes Middletown the APP states, "More transparency should be viewed as a necessity, not an option. Governing bodies in New Jersey, on all levels, cannot be trusted to spend money appropriately without substantial public oversight. They’ve proven that time after time after time, and far too often the degree of abuse is only discovered after the fact, when the money is gone and there’s little to be done beyond pointing a few fingers." It is nearly impossible to get a straight answer from anyone associated with the Middletown governing body when the issue deals with any type of finances.

New Jersey's elected and appointed officials need to do a much better job at being transparent. Holding back information lead to corruption and the dishonestly of our officials and the distrust of the citizenry.

Here's what the APP editorial has to say:

Politicians can make some very strange distinctions when it suits them.

Consider Gov. Chris Christie, who has generated so much good will — and scored quite a few political points for himself — with his fist-pounding, bipartisan determination in demanding aid for Sandy recovery and vowing the resurrection of the Jersey Shore.

He wants money, he wants relief for residents, he wants to get moving with reconstruction efforts, and he wants all of it fast. On Tuesday, he ripped into the National Flood Insurance Program for a lack of urgency in resolving claims, no doubt earning more than a few “Go, Governor” responses from victims struggling in the storm’s aftermath.

Yet when it comes to additional government transparency to assure that the funds pouring into the state for recovery purposes are being spent properly and efficiently, Christie’s tone changes dramatically. The can-do, make-it-happen governor is instead transformed into a weak-willed bureaucrat.

Democrats are pushing a bill that would require online document postings detailing the distribution of storm recovery money and the issuance of state contracts. Christie has been hesitant to agree to the plan, conceding the potential value of such transparency, but not if it “takes away from having bodies on the ground.”

So our state government doesn’t have enough manpower to be transparent? That’s nonsense — and Christie knows it. What does “on the ground” really mean in practical terms anyway? Are we to believe that someone’s going to stop hammering nails to repair a roof or fail to hand-deliver an aid payment for someone’s next meal so they can instead post a few documents online?

Christie wants everyone else to come through for New Jersey; he pulled no punches insisting that federal officials do whatever it takes to speed the processing of the flood insurance claims. He should demand the same efficiency from his own state government. And we find it difficult to believe the state can’t manage to provide more spending information online without somehow compromising the overall response to the storm.

More transparency should be viewed as a necessity, not an option. Governing bodies in New Jersey, on all levels, cannot be trusted to spend money appropriately without substantial public oversight. They’ve proven that time after time after time, and far too often the degree of abuse is only discovered after the fact, when the money is gone and there’s little to be done beyond pointing a few fingers. That distrust has been earned by both parties and by countless means, and it does not change with a new leader, or an overhauled administration. It is a permanent stain.

That doesn’t mean every politician is dishonest. Far from it. But it does mean policies must be dictated by an assumption that corruption could be anywhere, and that the best antidote is as open a government as possible.

It is a certainty that less public scrutiny of Sandy recovery spending will lead to more of that money being wasted. Lawmakers need to help avert that before the funds evaporate. So let us all see exactly what’s going on.

In praise of those life-saving libraries

There's an interesting editorial piece today appearing in the Newark Star-Ledger pertaining to the importance of our public libraries. The piece was written by Brian Regal, a professor at Kean University.

 As an anonymous commenter so eloquently stated on the previous post;  "This should be read by every member of Middletown's Library Board of Trustees and especially by the Middletown Township Committee members..., Library service in Middletown is one of the most important functions of public service to this community. Education is a primary concern for a progressive society. An excellent library system is a primary ingredient to meet the public's need. We had that requirement until politics as usual is endeavoring to destroy our library. The politicians appear as a self serving bunch of incompetent individuals who put political priorities above the educational needs of the community the Middletown Public Library System serves." . 

I happen to agree.

 If you also agree, read the editorial written by Mr. Regal below, then sign the petition to save the Navesink branch of Middletown's public library:

"The mayor of Plainfield wants to cut the city’s public library funding by half, and that city is not alone. Never mind the lost jobs. There is a larger issue here. There is a growing perception in some quarters that, in the internet age, libraries and books are useless dinosaurs from the dusty past. This is a terrible attitude and a lie.

A community that gives up on its libraries has given up on its prosperity. It has written off all but its wealthiest citizens and made knowledge acquisition — one of the bedrocks of a free society — seem a pointless exercise.

Rather than fiscal prudence, cutting or eliminating libraries shows economic and cultural shortsightedness along with an abandonment of values and the concept of the public good: something for which elected officials are supposed to fight. Public libraries are one of the most cost-effective means of producing intelligent, literate and successful citizens. They also help reduce crime, gang activity and drug use by the young. I know this from personal experience...."  

....Continue reading

APP Editorial: Shameful start out of the box

Here is an editorial that the Asbury Park Press has gotten right and if you read the comment posted by readers afterwards, they all seem to agree:

The new 5-0 Republican majority on the Monmouth County freeholder board got off to a disgraceful start this week: Its first order of business was rescinding its tough 2008 pay-to-play campaign finance restrictions. Welcome back to the world of one-party rule.

The old ground rules, passed in response to Operation Bid Rig, a sting targeting money laundering and political corruption that led to the arrests of 13 politicians in the county in 2005, was a huge step in putting an end to the sort of legal bribery that allowed graft to flow freely.

The freeholders now seem to believe that graft and corruption are a thing of the past. Either that or they want to cement their one-party grip on the board, briefly lost the past few years, by ensuring campaign contributors are aptly rewarded when it comes time to handing out contracts.

Under the previous rules, individual contributions were capped at $300, while a firm’s contribution was limited to $2,600. Candidates could not accept a contribution from another county’s political party in excess of $2,600 per election.

Now that those rules have been rescinded, the board will be guided by the state’s lenient “fair and open” bidding process for counties and municipalities, which state Comptroller Matthew Boxer has said is anything but.

In a commentary in the Press last year, Boxer wrote, “The pay-to-play law presents few, if any, real obstacles to local government entities seeking to reward politically favored vendors with public contracts ... a series of fatal flaws have essentially rendered the pay-to-play law meaningless at the local government level.”

What reason did the freeholders offer for changing their minds? Freeholder Lillian Burry, who voted for the tougher pay-to-play regulations in 2008, said they made sense then: “It appeared at the time to be a very necessary thing for us to do,” Burry said.

But now? Burry says the 2008 rules may be “too harsh” and proved “very confusing to the professionals.”

The freeholders apparently would have us believe that the people who want to do business with Monmouth County were absolutely flummoxed by the 2008 county standard, and could not fathom the differences between the county’s rules and the “fair and open” process.

If the freeholders adequately educated potential contract bidders to those differences and they still couldn’t get it, those aren’t the sort of people the county should be hiring in the first place.

What is clear is the freeholders’ action was shameless. They should reinstate the tougher pay-to-play rules. If they don’t, citizens should express their disgust at the polls.

APP Editorial "Decency absent in GOP mailing" Slams 11th District GOP Candidates For Smear Against Rival Gopal

Today's edition of the Asbury Park Press contains an editorial slaming 11th District GOP Assmebly candidates Caroline Casagrande and Mary Pat Angelini for the over the top and deceitful campaign mailer sent to district residents attempting to smear their Democratic opponent Vin Gopal, by insinuating that he is corrupt because he once worked as a campaign manager for former Perth Amboy Mayor Joseph Vas, as a 20year old college intern.

Vas and another campaign aid Raymond Geneske, were convicted and sent to jail for various campaign offenses which Gopal had nothing to do with.


The recent campaign flier approved by Republicans Caroline Casagrande and Mary Pat Angelini in the 11th District Assembly race seeking to smear Democrat Vin Gopal was beyond the pale — even by New Jersey standards.

It used reckless innuendo in attempting to portray Gopal as corrupt because he once was campaign manager for disgraced former Perth Amboy Mayor Joseph Vas.

Although the ad was produced by the Republican State Committee, Casagrande and Angelini both signed off on it. And, on Friday, both said they stood by it. That’s almost as disturbing as the mailer itself, which tried through deliberate misdirection to suggest that Gopal was mixed up in a campaign money laundering and fraud scheme.

Gopal was campaign manager for Vas in 2006 as a 20-year-old political science major at Penn State University, for which he received course credit and a modest salary. His chief job was organizing volunteers and answering phones. He had nothing to do with any illegal money.

On one side of the mailer, which showed dollar bills swirling in a clothes drier, it read, “To you, this might look like someone illegally laundering money. To Vin Gopal, it looks like pay day.”

On the flip side, it said, “Corrupt Political Bosses. Money Laundering. Fraud. It’s just another day at the office for Vin Gopal.”

Further down, it had an April 2011 newspaper headline proclaiming, “Aide to former Perth Amboy Mayor Joseph Vas pleads guilty to money laundering.” The text of the story, which was covered with another headline, would have identified the aide as Raymond Geneske. The mailing implied it was Gopal.

“We didn’t say he went to jail. He was the campaign manager of a corrupt campaign,” said Tom Fitzsimmons, District 11 GOP campaign spokesman. “Everything in the mailer is 100 percent true.”

Maybe so. But it was a clear attempt to portray him as corrupt.

While the Gopal campaign has sent out some hard-ball negative mailings of its own, none of them have been in the same league as what the state Republican committee created and the candidates approved.


The mailer lacked a complete sense of decency and fair play, further contributing to voters’ cynicism and disgust with politicians who will do anything to win election.

The Republicans do not seem to care. Voters should when it comes to weighing their options for the Assembly seats at the polls on Tuesday.

APP Editorial: Obama's stature compromised

The editorial below is from today's Asbury Park Press, needless to say I am in full agreement!

President Barack Obama has revealed himself to be a man unwilling to fight for the principles in which he has said he believed.

The protracted debt ceiling/deficit reduction battle reveals, more starkly than ever, this president’s inability to stand firm. The United States may avoid a default, but the battle will end not with a bang, but with a whimper. Sadly, this is now the defining moment of Obama’s presidency.

How many times during the last six months has Obama capitulated to the 80 unreasoning Tea Party members of the House of Representatives and their right-wing echo chamber on talk radio and cable TV?

First, he allowed the debt ceiling talks to be linked to deficit reduction, then he abandoned even the idea of revenue increases. He gave away the store and alienated his base, and still the radical fringe frames the debate, now by demanding more cuts and an unnecessary constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, which would hamstring the government in the wake of major events. He could have stood up at any time, holding the 14th Amendment option in his pocket as a last resort. Now he just waits like the rest of us to see what happens next.

The president gave in and gave in, and he has lost whatever good will the great middle had for his attempt to be the rational one in the argument. Americans cannot respect a president who runs up the white flag of surrender.

And this obscene sausage-making is only the latest in a long line of appeasements: on health care, on Guantanamo Bay, on civilian trials for terror suspects.

We teach our children the fine art of compromise, but if you compromise away your values, you’ve lost something you cannot get back by barter.

We don’t want to elect some “philosopher-king” out of Plato. We want a leader with fire in his belly, who at least puts up an honest struggle based on core principles, who, in the words of Theodore Roosevelt, “spends himself in a worthy cause ... and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

So many thought that Barack Obama might be just that man. It looks as if we were wrong.

On income taxes and job creation, history debunks GOP views

By Star-Ledger Editorial Board
Sunday, July 17, 2011

We’re used to politicians stretching the truth, but this is getting ridiculous. For months now, congressional Republicans have refused to support any debt ceiling and budget deal that would raise taxes on the wealthy because, these economic wizards tell us, the rich are “job creators.”

Tax increases would discourage these job genies from expanding their businesses. Unemployment, already at 9.2 percent (which says something about the job-creation myth, doesn’t it?), would get even worse, they insist. The problem with this economic philosophy? It’s garbage.

Even Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in the world, knows that: “The rich are always going to say, ‘Just give us more money and we’ll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you.’ But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.”

The American public, it seems, is catching on, even if Republicans want to twist the truth about that, too. Speaker of the House John Boehner keeps insisting, “The American people don’t want us to raise taxes.” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says, “This economy is ailing and we don’t believe, nor do the American people believe, raising taxes is the answer.”

Think again. Americans believe Congress should raise taxes on the wealthy.

A new Quinnipiac survey asked voters if they support a budget deal with only budget cuts or a blend of cuts and taxes on corporations and the rich. Only 25 percent said cuts only. Sixty-seven percent want cuts and a tax increase on the wealthy.

Republican leaders are not only misrepresenting what the American people want, they’re covering up Republican numbers, too. In a recent Gallup poll, only 26 percent of Republicans favored lowering the debt with cuts alone. In just about every poll — ABC News, Washington Post, Bloomberg, Reuters — Americans want spending cuts and they want the wealthy to pay a larger share.

But maybe the American people are wrong. Let’s check the history. Did giving the wealthy a break with the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 help create jobs? Uh, no. From the end of the 2000-01 recession, just when the first Bush tax cuts took effect, until the beginning of the Great Recession, the economy grew at a slower pace than in any postrecession recovery period since World War II. Pay, adjusted for inflation, fell. And it took 39 months to get the number of jobs back to where it was before the 2000-01 recession.

Despite the same promises of jobs, the economy limped along. And the additional tax cut in 2003 didn’t rev it up, either.

President Bill Clinton faced vociferous opposition to his 1993 budget plan, which raised the top tax rates from 31 percent to 39.6 percent. Republicans called it the “Kevorkian Plan.”

So, what happened? Unparalleled economic growth. The nation’s unemployment dropped from 6.9 percent to 4 percent. The deficit shrank, and in 1998, the federal government boasted a surplus for the first time since 1969.

It seems the economy can survive a tax hike on the wealthy after all. And the tax hike did wonders to reduce the deficit as well, as designed.

More evidence: During the 1950s and early 1960s, when America experienced sustained growth, marginal tax rates on the rich were the highest they’ve ever been — 91 percent for the top bracket. (Even President Ronald Reagan, the Republican economic poster boy, raised taxes after he cut them.)

But Republicans keep chanting the same nonsense — without offering historical evidence to back it up. Instead, they want to bring the nation to the brink of default while protecting corporations (who are sitting on billions in profits) and fat cats — while everyday Americans are squeezed by high gas and food prices, plunging home prices and lower wages.

Let’s call the job-creator stuff what it is: a myth.

NY Times: Gov. Christie Abandons a Good Idea

The following editorial was published yesterday in the NY Times, people should read it before falling for his claim to be an advocate for the environment:

Running for governor in 2009, Chris Christie vowed to become “New Jersey’s No. 1 clean-energy advocate.” That was a hollow promise. As governor, Mr. Christie proceeded to cut all the money for the Office of Climate and Energy. He raided $158 million from the clean energy fund, meant for alternative energy investments, and spent it on general programs. He withdrew the state from an important lawsuit against electric utilities to reduce emissions.

On Thursday, he took the worst step of all: He abandoned the 10-state initiative in the Northeast that uses a cap-and-trade system to lower carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants. The program has been remarkably successful, a model of vision and fortitude. Lacking that, Mr. Christie has given in to the corporate and Tea Party interests that revile all forms of cap and trade, letting down the other nine states trying to fight climate change.

The system works by requiring utilities to either lower their emissions or buy allowances to pollute. Money from the allowances goes to states for clean-energy programs. Since it began in 2008, the system has created more than $700 million for these programs; New Jersey has spent some of its share on helping cities become more energy-efficient. Greenhouse emissions from power plants in the region went down about 12 percent from 2008 to 2010 for many reasons, including lower natural gas prices. Programs like the regional initiative are estimated to have produced more than 10 percent of that decline.

Mr. Christie has already demonstrated his disdain for the program’s goals by spending $65 million of the state’s $100 million share from the allowances to pay down New Jersey’s deficit. He claimed this week that the program was not working, a notion that was quickly refuted by five other governors. “Governor Christie is simply wrong when he claims that these efforts are a failure,” said Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland. He said they had an equivalent effect of taking 3,500 cars off the road in his state.

For now, at least, the far right has killed cap and trade nationally, but the idea is far from dead. Several Western states are gearing up for a cap-and-trade program; California has been particularly aggressive. The Northeast state compact will survive Mr. Christie’s exit. It is New Jersey that will be the poorer, with less to invest in smarter energy programs, more carbon dioxide and a leadership vacancy at its helm.

Monday Night: Scharfenberger Is Tongue Tied

As promised, this is the last video clip from the November 15th, 2010 Middletown Township Committee meeting. Resident Paul Jansen read into the record, the Asbury Park Press editorial "Tongue tied for a reason" which lambasted Middletown"s mayor, Gerry Scharfenberger for not disclosing his new job as Director for the Office of Planning Advocacy until after the November 2, 2010 election.

Again, throughout Jansen's address, just like the others, Scharfenberger's body language tells a story. He is clearly agitated with the proceeding during the night, which he should have been and keeps his head down seemingly writing (doodling) on some type of paper until Mr. Jansen is finished.

I only point this out because this type of body language displayed by Scharfenberger is at many meetings where residents have a difference of opinion from him. When he has had enough, he interrupts to interject the 5 minute rule (times up,sit down) as seen in other videos, or he tries his other method at silencing those at the podium, offer to speak with them after the meeting, which seldom happens due to the late hour in which the meetings generally finish, often after 11pm.

Planners question credentials of Middletown committeeman coordinating N.J. policy

Wow, what an article in today's Asbury Park Press written by Kevin Penton, to go along with the Press's editorial about Middletown's mayor, Gerry Scharfenberger.

Kevin Penton really delved into the story by asking those that deal with the Office of Planning Advocacy, if they thought that Middletown's Scharfenberger was qualified to head the department, the consensus of those asked seems to be a resounding NO and they question his appointment.

Here are a few excerpts from the article, but make sure that you read follow-up and the article in it's entirety to get the full impact of what was written:

"Digging up rocks doesn't make you a planner," remarked Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. "The only science being conducted in this office is political science, not real science."

...Just like former Gov. Jim McGreevey and Gov. Jon S. Corzine before him, Gov. Chris Christie hired a politician who lacks state accreditation as a licensed planner to direct what is now the Office of Planning Advocacy, said Charles Latini, president of the New Jersey chapter of the American Planners Association...

..."The administration seems to be moving slowly and deliberatively in specific areas,"... "The planning community doesn't have a clue where they're going."...

Shawn Crisafulli, a spokesman for the Department of State... did not answer how many candidates were considered for Scharfenberger's position, whether he had to undergo an application and interview process or was simply appointed, and whether the state advertised the open position....

...That a politician, rather than a planner, was chosen to head the agency that coordinates planning for New Jersey demonstrates what anyone looking at the Office of Planning Advocacy needs to know about its future priorities, said the Sierra Club's Tittel....

..."It's disgraceful," said Tittel, who is concerned the Office of Planning Advocacy may become further politicized under the Department of State. "They really want to play politics and not do planning, which is supposed to be their jobs."...

...Carlos Rodrigues, who worked in the Office of Smart Growth from 1994 to 2004, said when the state needed a director for the agency in the past, it conducted national searches, seeking experienced professionals with planning backgrounds.

"It was taken seriously," said Rodrigues, a senior fellow with the Regional Planning Association. "Now we have a mayor as the head of the office? That's a really, really bad idea. It's ridiculous."...

...Latini said he does not understand how the state permits anyone without a planning accreditation to be able to head the Office of Planning Advocacy...

...Rodrigues said the Christie administration needs to decide whether it is taking the Office of Planning Advocacy, and its cost to taxpayers, seriously.

"If you're not going to fix it, then get rid of it," Rodrigues said. "It's an embarrassment the way it is, a complete sham."...

Amazing isn't it, how does Christie get a way with appointing Scharfy to such an important position as this, with no experience or certification in planning, when the state of the economy is in need of experienced people to help nurture its growth while the state is trying to recover from this devastating national recession?

Instead of stepping down from Middletown's Township Committee as some have proposed, maybe Gerry should give up his new job and go back to being an archaeologist. I'm sure that some private sector firm could use someone who's PhD thesis was on the composition of Colonial era glass (or something to that effect) and leave the planning of the recovery of the state's economy to someone more qualified in that field.

APP Editorial: (Scharfenberger) Tongue tied for a reason

For those that keep questioning whether or not it was ethical for Middletown's mayor, Gerry Scharfenberger, to take a position within the Christie Administration and not say anything about it until after the election, I want to refer them to today's Asbury Park Press editorial on the subject.

The APP questions Scharfenberger's honesty (something local democrats have been doing for years) and Governor Christie double standards regarding those that would hold two public jobs. They also call into question Scharfenberger's qualifications for the job, wondering if Scharfenberger's only qualification for the job was his non-stop and incessant grandstanding , calling the governor a "rock star" at Township meetings and other political events.

The APP concludes the editorial by insisting that "Scharfenberger should resign from one of his positions. If he doesn't, Christie should either insist on it or explain why he has changed his thinking on public servants holding more than one public job."

That conclusion is hard to argue against even if you are an ardent supporter of Scharfy, the Middletown GOP or the Governor himself.

Below is the full text of the editorial:

Middletown Mayor Gerard P. Scharfenberger was disingenuous at best and downright dishonest at worst when he kept mum about a state job he took while running for re-election. It seems that politicians only keep their mouths shut when they've got something to hide.

That seems to be the case with Scharfenberger, who started working as the executive director of the state Office of Planning Advocacy in mid-August while running for a third term on the Township Committee. The full-time state job, which pays $95,000 a year, is not so much a case of double-dipping — Scharfenberger doesn't take a salary as mayor — as it is mendacity. It's a lie of omission.

Scharfenberger's hiring also again raises the question of whether a double standard exists in the Christie administration regarding people holding two public positions. And whether hiring decisions are based on qualifications or politics.

In September, Christie unveiled a package of ethics reforms that proposed a ban on elected officials holding more than one public job — regardless of whether they were drawing a paycheck. That same month, Jackson Mayor Mike Reina, a Christie loyalist who had been working as a security guard at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant, was appointed to a $78,000-a-year position at the state Department of Transportation, which, according to its website, was in the midst of a hiring freeze. Reina was hired as a "confidential aide" in the Office of Emeergency Managment.

Two weeks ago, an Asbury Park Press reporter working on a Middletown election preview story asked Scharfenberger what he did for a living. He said he was an archaeologist and a Monmouth University professor. (He is an adjunct faculty member.) Did his new day job just slip his mind? Well, no. Last week, asked why he didn't mention the state job at the time, Scharfenberger said, "I just assumed that everyone knew."

As head of what used to be called the Office of Smart Growth, Scharfenberger is responsible for guiding economic growth and land use through state planning, said Shawn Crisafulli, a spokesman for the Department of State, which oversees the office.

"The administration hired him because of his public experience," Crisafulli said. "Dr. Scharfenberger has vast expertise in land use, zoning, planning and open space."

Did the Christie administration settle on the archaeologist after an extensive nationwide search? The state isn't saying.

"Out of fairness to both Dr. Scharfenberger and any other candidates we interviewed and considered, we do not discuss this process publicly," Crisafulli said.

It seems one of Scharfenberger's chief qualifications was his sycophantic boosterism of the governor, calling him a "rock star" during Township Committee meetings and at political events, and shilling for him at every opportunity.

Scharfenberger has had a few months to settle into his new position, and according to some knowledgeable observers, it is disconcerting that a politician and not an accredited planner has been appointed to this pivotal job. Qualified or not, Scharfenberger should heed Christie's words about the problems inherent in one person holding two public jobs — even if Christie doesn't hold members of his own party to that standard.

Scharfenberger should resign from one of his positions. If he doesn't, Christie should either insist on it or explain why he has changed his thinking on public servants holding more than one public job.

APP Editorial: Send them an e-mail

No matter how Gerry Scharfenberger and Tony Mercantante tray and spin the fiasco of last weeks ill advised, late night "Robo calls" to residents, they just need to admit those calls should not have been made in the first place. It doesn't matter if the calls were supposed to be place at 6:45 pm or not. The message was not important enough to use the reverse 911 system when other means of communicating with residents about the new "Recycle to Save" program had already been done.

Evidently the Asbury Park Press seems to agree, below is their editorial that ran this past Saturday condemning them for using taxpayer-funded Robo calls to inform residents of this program:

Late-night phone calls are hardly ever good news. Nobody calls you then to tell you you've just won a million bucks.

A ringing phone after bedtime can be nerve-wracking. On Wednesday, the nerves of thousands of Middletown residents were wracked by an automated phone call between 10 and 11 p.m. with a recording of Mayor Gerard Scharfenberger reminding them of the importance of recycling.

Some residents who didn't pick up the first time — perhaps because they were asleep — were called repeatedly until they answered the phone. We suspect most people were less than appreciative of the message.

The late calls were the result of a glitch in the taxpayer-funded service — one that should be reserved for emergencies and urgent notifications.

Township Administrator Anthony Mercantante said the calls were scheduled to go out at 6:45 p.m. So, dinner hour would have been a better time to waste the taxpayers' time and money?

Glitches happen. They're excusable. What isn't are robocalls — late at night, at dinnertime or any other time of day — whose message could easily be communicated in other non-obtrusive ways.

Those leaving comments online had a full things to say themselves about it:

jerseyswamps wrote:
Is that what that was! Now I'm really angry! I heard it was some kind of BS recording and hung up. Nice job, Mayor. Way to earn good will. BTW, ANY politician that sends me a robo call at anytime goes way down on my list of who to vote for. 10/16/2010 7:27:16 AM

mkm586 wrote:
Obama Park Press, we agree, rarelt but thanks. Don't stop there, turn Penton loose to investigate further. Get my old friend Lisa Kruse and the spirit of Randy Brahmier to help if necessary. They worked when the Press actually was part of political accountability. Was it the reverse 911 system? Is that legal? Who authorized it? If there is a third party company involved who are they? What are they paid? What action is being taken and to correct this from happening again? What punitive action is being taken...if any? And what exactly was the "glitch"? Were not talking about a few dozen calls but thousands. Get us some answers. While you're at it what's up with those millions the town borrowed years ago for the football field that never was? Like I said my Dad didn't get a call apologizing his taxes went up 13%. Obama Park Press, Judy's gone their fair game, time to follow through!!! 10/16/2010 7:53:06 AM

TheStupidHurts wrote:
I support anything that will get people to vote against scharfenberger, it's a rare talent to be an abomination to both left and right.
10/16/2010 8:01:27 AM

Ignore_The_Lies wrote:
Schools are doing the same thing with "robo-calls". The idea of notifying parents of a scheduling change due to a storm is one thing - pestering them about upcoming "events" such as football games and fund raises is another.

If there are 3 people I absolutely HATE in this world they are (1) the jerk that came up with voicemail, (2) the jerk that came up with automated "phone trees" ("Press 1 for billing... Press 2 to report a leak..."), and (3) the jerk who came up with the bright idea to use an automated "emergency notification system" for HORSEPUCKY. 10/16/2010 9:55:13 AM

N.J. Gov. Chris Christie signs an unbalanced budget

Good editorial from the Star-Ledger this morning dealing with the realities of the "unbalanced budget" signed by Gov. Christie yesterday:

"The budget signed yesterday by Gov. Chris Christie will reduce state spending for the third year in a row. The total now is roughly at the same level it was in 2005.

No serious person disputes the need for austerity in these times. We are headed in the right direction.

The pity is that this governor failed to demand the shared sacrifice that he himself made a central criteria for judging the final product. Yesterday, he continued to deny that central fact.

“We tried to spread the pain as evenly as we could,” he told a national television audience.

Here are the facts: The 16,000 families in New Jersey earning more than $1 millon will get an average tax break of $40,000 apiece under this budget. At the same time, a single mom working for minimum wage will pay $300 more in state taxes.

The biggest cuts in this budget are painful but unavoidable. That includes the deep cuts in aid to schools and towns, and in property tax rebates. His single biggest move was to short the pension fund by $3 billion. Together, those moves account for the bulk of the governor’s spending reductions.

The problem is the tax break. If the governor had not insisted on that, he could have softened the blow on the needy considerably.

He would not have had to increase taxes on that working poor mom, or make deep cuts in health care, affordable housing, child-care subsidies and school lunches.

So no, the governor is not spreading the pain. This budget plainly favors the wealthy.

Denying that fact doesn’t make it go away."

The Washington Post - Editorial: Soft on terror? Not this president

Hat tip to my Facebook friend Jorge Santos-

The Washington Post
Sunday, January 3, 2010

THERE IS, it seems evident, more than enough blame to go around in the botched handling of the botched Christmas bombing. Not for some Republicans. With former vice president Richard B. Cheney in the lead, they have embarked on an ugly course to use the incident to inflict maximum political damage on President Obama. That's bad enough, but their scurrilous line of attack is even worse. The claim that the incident shows the president's fecklessness in the war on terror is unfounded -- no matter how often it is repeated.

These critics have set up a straw Obama, a weak and naive leader who allegedly takes terrorism lightly, thinks that playing nicely with terrorists will make them stop, and fails to understand the threat that the United States faces from violent extremists. Mr. Cheney said that the incident had made "clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war." Likewise, Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) called on Mr. Obama to "recognize that we are at war with a murderous enemy who will not relent because we heed political correctness, acquiesce to international calls for deference or close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay." Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano "and the rest of the Obama administration view their role as law enforcement, first responders dealing with the aftermath of an attack. And we believe in a forward-looking approach to stopping these attacks before they happen."

There are two ways to show how baseless these attacks are: examining Mr. Obama's words and examining his actions.

Words first. "Evil does exist in the world," Mr. Obama said in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. "Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms." In his weekly radio speech Saturday, he disposed of the war-vs.-law-enforcement canard, pointing out that in his inaugural address he made it clear that "0ur nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred and that we will do whatever it takes to defeat them and defend our country, even as we uphold the values that have always distinguished America among nations." "

But actions speak louder, and Mr. Obama's actions -- often at the cost of enraging his party's liberal base -- have also demonstrated tenacity and pragmatism blended with a necessary reassessment of the flawed policies of his predecessors and a recommitment to the rule of law. He wants to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, which is all to the good given its stain on the national character, but he has delayed that goal until acceptable alternatives can be found. He has brought criminal charges against some terrorists, but he has also sent others to be tried by military tribunals. He has invoked the authority of the executive to have lawsuits dismissed because they risk exposing state secrets. In addition to the new troop deployments, he has aggressively used predator drones to strike at terrorists, including outside Afghanistan. Even before the failed attack, his administration has been working aggressively with Yemeni authorities to deal with extremists there.

It is possible to disagree with the administration's decision to bring criminal charges against the suspect in the failed airplane bombing, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, although we think that was the proper course. It is possible to fault, as we have, some of the administration's public statements in the immediate aftermath of the attack. And as the president has acknowledged, the incident revealed failures in intelligence and in security screening that must be urgently identified and corrected. The country would benefit from a serious and bipartisan effort in Congress to ensure that the lessons of the Christmas attack are learned. A groundless campaign to portray Mr. Obama as soft on terror can only detract from that effort.

Asbury Park Press Editorial: Christie, DMV no strangers

If nothing else, the election of Chris Christie as governor would be a boon to public safety. He would be assigned a driver, keeping him away from behind the wheel of a car.

Christie, it was confirmed this week, has been involved in six automobile accidents, stretching back to 1985 and including one in July 2002 in which he turned the wrong way on a one-way street and struck a motorcyclist, sending him to the hospital.

Christie was never issued a traffic ticket, mentioning to the police on the scene that he was the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey. He has received tickets on several other occasions, however. Since 1985, he has had 13 moving violations, including at least five for speeding, good for 25 points.

However, in the eyes of the Motor Vehicle Commission he remains a "driver in good standing."

That's debatable. What isn't is that all of these blemishes give the public a growing sense that, while not exactly using his position as U.S. Attorney to gain special favor, he seems to fully understand that rank has its privileges and has no qualms about using it.

Christie has exhibited signs of sloppy and careless behavior not only on the highways but in his finances. He "forgot" to tell the IRS about his loan to a subordinate, Michele Brown, which ultimately led to her resigning from her job to keep the issue from damaging his election chances.

It's also galling that the Christie campaign doesn't take any of this seriously, tossing off each new revelation as if it existed in a vacuum, rather than continuing an increasingly worrisome pattern.

Christie campaign spokeswoman Maria Comella called the 2002 accident unfortunate and said the candidate "knows he can always be a better driver."

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like he's learned any lessons. Not after the 1989 accident in Cranford, or the 1993 and 1996 accidents in Bloomfield, or the 2002 accident in Elizabeth or the 2007 accident in Netcong. Or after the fifth speeding ticket.

Asked by the Press to provide more details about the accidents, the Christie campaign said it did not plan to do so since all the information is "out there." No it isn't. Details have been provided only about the 2002 accident. And they were first reported by a newspaper.

We can only hope that if Christie becomes governor, this isn't the kind of openness and transparency we can expect from his administration.