The latest column from the Progressive Populist.
Author: hankkalet
Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie.
An interesting compromise
The Record offers an interesting approach to the sales tax fight: Make the hike temporary and revisit the discussion next year.
If next year at this time, the state’s economy has rebounded, then the tax hike can lapse. If the economy still lags, lawmakers will have had a full year to determine where state government can be most effectively reduced by $1.1 billion. If Trenton can’t come up with the cuts or find new revenue sources by this time next year, then the sales tax hike should stay.
Skeptics raise the legitimate concern that taxes that are pitched as “temporary solutions” invariably end up as permanent, but that’s not necessarily the case. Three years ago, for example, Idaho adopted a one-cent sales-tax increasethat expired — on schedule — in 2005.
We are one of the most fiscally dysfunctional states in the nation. As an editorial in The Wall Street Journal pointed out yesterday, at least 40 states are operating in the black, while only a handful, including “perpetually hapless New Jersey,” still find themselves in budget holes.
Mr. Corzine is trying to finally put this state’s financial house in order. Last-minute, panic-driven “solutions” are the last thing New Jersey needs right now.
We won’t be getting an 11th-hour donation from Warren Buffett. A temporary 1-cent tax increase is the best way to solve the budget impasse.
Budget crisis still looms
First Amendment under siege
First, the good news: A proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have banned desecration of the flag fell one vote short of approval in the U.S. Senate today, preserving for now the right to use the flag to make political statements.
“Our country’s unique because our dissidents have a voice,” said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, a World War II veteran who lost an arm in the war and was decorated with the Medal of Honor.
“While I take offense at disrespect to the flag,” he said, “I nonetheless believe it is my continued duty as a veteran, as an American citizen and as a United States senator to defend the constitutional right of protesters to use the flag in nonviolent speech.”
Here is what I wrote about the proposed amendment earlier this year.
***
The flag amendment is just one in a number of assaults the First Amendment has faced in recent times. The amendment protects five basic — I would argue our most basic — American freedoms: speech, the press, religion, assembly and the right of citizens to redress their government.
Freedom of speech covers the right to decent using words and symbols, like the flag, but also to write and speak out, to sing and to proclaim. The extreme partisans of our times, however, can result in harsh rebukes, verbal assaults, even death threats (ask the Dixie Chicks). Folks like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh question our patriotism, Ann Coulter accuses the left of treason and the administration builds its political base on the wreckage.
Religious groups are making greater and greater inroads into the public square, imposing their beliefs and squeezing out the unbelievers, while the government uas taken control of protest, forcing those critical of the administration into protest pens or turning their protests into crimes.
It is the freedom of the press, however, that is facing the most concerted assault. The latest attack by the Bush administration came this week, when the presidents and his men went after The New York Times for providing the reading public with information on the machinations of its government and another intrusion on our privacy. (The troubling nature of the progam has caused a European human rights group to lodge formal complaints.)
Uncovering the program, the Bushies say, endangers national security (their standard argument whenever anyone calls them on anything) and is tantamount to treason. This is nonsense, of course. The Times was just doing its job — which is to provide the public with information, the lifeblood of democracy.
An issue of emminence
This is not an easy issue, though some would have us believe so. Here are some differing perspectives:
- “Responsible Use of Eminent Domain,” The New York Times
- “Eminent domain bill doesn’t go far enough,” The Star-Ledger
- “Ruling affirms need for change,” Asbury Park Press
