Rock, rock, rock, rock,rock and roll Republicans

Politicians — at least those that capture the moment, as Barack Obama seemed to do earlier this month — are sometimes referred to as “rock stars.” Of course, John Kerry is no Bruce Springsteen, even if the Boss did stump for the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, and I just don’t see anything about George W. Bush that reminds me of Ted Nugent (Dick Cheney, maybe).

In any case, the notion of “rock star” politicians got me thinking: What if the current crop of Republican candidates for president were to form bands (Mike Huckabee is an accomplished bass player) and released albums. What would their bands be called and what might they call their debut discs?

Well, here’s what I came up with:

  • Rudy Giuliani: Rudy G and the Autocrats, “A 9/11 State of Mind”
  • Mike Huckabee: Mike Huckabee’s Anti-Evolution Revolution, “Too Much Monkey Business”
  • Fred Thompson and Aqua Velva, “Wake Me When It’s Over”
  • Mitt Romney: Willard Romney and the Many Faces of Mitt, “Money to Burn”
  • John McCain: Mack Daddy McCain, “Straight Talk Gone Crooked”
  • Ron Paul: The Ron Paul Conspiracy, “Tilting at Windmills”
  • Duncan Hunter: Duncan Hunter and the Invisible Campaign, “Who is Duncan Hunter and Does Anyone Care?”

I think this sums up the field fairly well, if I do say so myself.

I’ll come back to the Democrats at another point.

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.

Toll plan redux redux

Interesting piece by Linda Stamato, who teaches at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. She asks some basic questions about the governor’s toll-hike and debt plan that need to be answered before anyone should offer any support.

She writes:

I don’t buy the governor’s “either/or” framework for fiscal salvation. We don’t either need to increase the income tax by 20 percent or the sales tax by 30, or the gas tax by 12 cents or live with the governor’s plan. A combination of approaches makes more sense to me. And, certainly we ought to be putting more on the table for inclusion than has been placed there so far. We need a combination of taxes, a freeze on spending and reductions in costs, to accompany reasonable increases in tolls. An income tax increase should not be summarily dismissed by any means, certainly if equity is a consideration, and, it must be. An increase in the gas tax also makes sense if the intention is to replenish the Transportation Trust Fund, address ransportation-related needs, including public transit, and, not least, encourage fuel efficiencies and reduce carbon emissions. (To be sure, Governor Corzine’s own ambitious goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions ought to figure in this picture as well.)

My own issues with the plan are as follows:

  • It is not broad-based. The plan asks a narrow class of people to pay the costs of fixing a mess created by the state Legislature and previous governors and that provided a host of benefits to people across the state.
  • It hits workers pretty hard, increasing the cost of people who must use the toll roads to get back and forth to work and those who drive for a living.
  • It is likely to force cars off the toll roads and onto local roads — for those of us in Central Jersey, that means an increase in cars and trucks on Routes 1 and 130.
  • It cuts debt, but does nothing to address the myriad problems that created the problem in the first place. Yes, the governor wants to force the state to go to voters when it wants to borrow money; that would be a positive step. But it leaves in place the 1,400 or so taxing entities — municipalities, school districts, fire districts, county governments, etc. — that craft their own budgets and have their own staffs. That’s a lot of overlapping jobs that could be eliminated if some of these entities were to be merged.
  • And the likely use of the toll money for pork projects, as Charles Stile points out in today’s column.

My sense is that a broader-based approach is necessary and must include steps to reduce spending and alter the tax structure — in addition to consolidation, we need to reconsider nearly everything we ask the government to do, what should be a state responsibility, a local responsibility and how much of the cost of government in New Jersey we expect the state to cover.

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.

Rushing to judgmentresults in rushed judgments

The Asbury Park Press today dresses down the state Legislature for its painfully undemocratic and incredibly inefficient practice of loading legislation into the last two months of its two-year session — the so-called lame-duck period between the legislative elections and the swearing in of newly elected legislators.

On the final day of the lame-duck legislative session last week, 89 bills were pushed through — about one-fourth the total number of bills approved by lawmakers in 2006-07. On that final day, 177 bills were up for consideration. Imagine the amount of caffeine flowing through the Statehouse veins that day. Imagine the quality of the decision-making.

Due deliberation was in short supply. Many of the bills were approved with little chance for public review or debate. Some of the most controversial weren’t introduced until days before the final voting session. How could the Legislature give a full vetting to any of them? It couldn’t and it didn’t.

The reason this is done, as the Press points out, is “to get legislation passed that might not fly if it were subject to closer examination by lawmakers and the public” — i.e., at a time when legislators might have to explain their actions to voters.

The lame-duck session does little to disabuse the public of the notion that New Jersey government is dysfunctional. The array of bills that get considered during this marathon session is mind boggling in its scope.

Some — like the bill repealing the death penalty — are positive changes. Others — like legislation allowing for price adjustments in public contracts ($), which thankfully failed to win approval — do little to advance the public interest.

On others — like the new state school funding formula, which was obviously delayed until December to avoid the electoral ramifications and then rushed through so that it could take effect in 2008 — the jury is still out.

Reform is needed. Rules limiting the number of bills that can be considered should be put in place and public officials need to commit themselves to ensuring that each piece of legislation gets the hearing it deserves. As the Press points out:

Trust in New Jersey government is nonexistent. It won’t be restored if citizens don’t have faith that decisions are made openly, with full debate and with their best interests in mind.

Process counts. Rushed decisions mean bad decisions. The Legislature is living proof.

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.

Race, gender and the presidential campaign

During the last week or so, the cable news channels have turned their attentions to some questionable comments both by the presidential candidates and their surrogates, comments that skirt the edges of the kind of racial and gender codes long used by the rightwing in this country.

The cocaine allusion, the reaction to the “tear,” the various veiled references to type — all of it has done little to further debate on the Democratic side, making it less likely that two key segments of the Democratic alliance will be able to work together once the primaries have concluded.

No one comes off well in this tussle. All three of the major candidates have been guilty — either directly or through a surrogate — of playing these games. And no one can benefit — at least not in a larger sense.

John Nichols attempts to put all of this in perspective in this post on The Nation:

Where both Clinton and Obama are misguided is in their shared attempt to score political points rather than to step back from the abyss of an ugly discourse and to seek the clarity that is so frequently absent from our politics.

Neither Clinton nor Obama is using history well or wisely. Neither is telling us what those of us who recognize the significance of the King-Johnson collaboration – and, for a brief shining moment it was a collaboration –need to hear. Neither is answering the fundamental questions: How, as president, would they relate to social and political movements? Would they invite the Martin Kings and the Frederick Douglasses of the twenty-first century to the White House? Would either of these two candidates, as president, sit down with those demanding transformational change, craft policies with supposed radicals, coordinate political strategies with influential outsiders – as did both Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s and Abraham Lincoln in the 1860s?

The shame is that none of the candidates of either party have shown any sense that they are even thinking of these questions, let alone offering us answers.

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.