A question of balance

The Star-Ledger this morning offers what appears on first glance to be a balanced overview of the state’s most recent foray into publicly financed elections. But a closer look reveals a somewhat questionable approach to the story.

I have no direct criticism of the general theme — that opinions are mixed — only with the manner in which the story gets there. Two conservative, anti-clean elections groups are quoted, one from Virginia, in what seems like an effort to find dissenting voices. Without the two groups, there are no dissenting voice.

Just as telling — and odd — NJ Citizen Action, the policy group in the state most voally in favor of clean elections, is ignored.

Far be it from me to tell other reporters how to report — yeah, right — but I would have taken a different tack.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Contractor protections a costly favor

This legislation would seem to be bad news for New Jersey taxpayers. The misleadingly titled “New Jersey Material Price Stabilization Act” is really nothing more than a payoff from an outgoing state legislator to the construction trade industry and could result in cost runups for local construction projects.

In Monroe, for instance, the school board will likely advertise bids for its new high school in February. If this legislation passes, it could leave that project open to price changes and cost hikes for which the board has not planned. The same goes for the firehouse being built in town.

And these are just examples. Charles Stiles in The Record called the legislation the “Politically Connected Contractors Protection Act of 2007”:

The bill would let contractors stick local governments with the cost of unforeseen spikes in construction materials, such as fuel, lumber and macadam. In effect, companies could charge local governments more than the original contract price. Towns could be refunded for drops in prices.

The builders, of course, like the bill.

“A few years ago, there was a dramatic run-up that caused problems, particularly with steel and copper [prices],” Kevin Monaco, lobbyist for electrical contractors, said in an interview Monday. “People talk about tremendous demand in China for goods, and building growth there causes upward pressure on the market. Natural disasters such as [Hurricane] Katrina cause upward pressure.”

Seems logical except that contractors should be monitoring the market and building their projections into their bids. That’s what towns and school districts do when they set their budgets for these projects.

The reality, as Stiles points out, is that the legislation would “saddle towns with higher operating costs.”

Some towns, they argue, will have to assign staff just to validate contractor claims of higher materials costs. Smaller towns will be forced to farm out the work to consulting engineers. Officials also worry that unscrupulous contractors will artificially lower their bids to get the work, knowing that there is a good chance they can charge towns for construction costs at a later date.

And local officials argue that the borrowing costs for projects will rise. Towns will be forced to approve large bond issues for unexpected cost fluctuations — another cost that could put pressure on local tax rates.

The bill would minimize the risk for contractors, and add to the work and possibly costs to taxpayers, says L. Mason Neely, a longtime fiscal watchdog for the New Jersey League of Municipalities.

“This bill is not going to help the general public,” he said.

So why pass something like this? Stiles offers one possible answer:

The Building Contractors Association of New Jersey, one of the bill’s supporters, contributed $180,000, most of it to Democratic candidates, according to Election Law Enforcement Commission records. The Mechanical Contractors Association, another supporter of the bill, donated $114,000 during the election cycle, records show.

The powerful AFL-CIO of New Jersey, the umbrella group that boasts 1 million members and a de facto auxiliary of the state Democratic Party over the past decade, also supports the bill. Giving contractors a chance to recover their losses for materials reduces the risk of layoffs.

If ever a piece of legislation demonstrated the need for campaign finance reform, this is one.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

The Romney speech

Mitt Romney’s speech today, in which he attempted to “address concerns” that apparently come from a significant portion of Republican voters about his Mormon beliefs, is going to be dissected, bissected and generally revisited ad nauseum by those vapid pundits who populate cable news.

While I won’t comment directly on it (I’ll let John Nichols do so), the speech is worth noting:

The former Massachusetts governor — the first major Mormon candidate for president — has seen his support slip recently in the early battleground state of Iowa amid misgivings by some Christians, particularly evangelicals, about his religion.

So in a 20-minute address billed as his definitive response to the issue, Romney said he was seeking to be a leader for Americans of all faiths, not just his own.

“If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no religion, no one group, no one cause,” Romney said, eliciting applause from the audience at the George Bush Presidential Library here on the campus of Texas A&M University.

“There are some for whom those commitments are not enough,” he added. “They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say it is more of a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers.”

Romney even struck a note of defiance, suggesting at one point that he understood his Mormon faith could cost him some votes. But he predicted that Americans would ultimately respect him for sticking to his beliefs, noting that the United States had a proud tradition of religious tolerance that began with the founding fathers.

“Some believe that such a confession will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it,” he said. “But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.”

What strikes me about this, however, is not the potential political implications. What strikes me is that, in the year 2007, we still view some religions as suspect. The speech, in many ways, should not have been necessary.

That Romney and the political establishment seemed to think it was says a lot more about that segment of Republican voting base — and the pundit class — than it does about Romney. His religion just shouldn’t matter.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.