The long campaign

What if you ran for president and no one cared? Why, you’d probably drop out. Just ask former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack.

As silly as a story like this seems when we remain a full year before the first primary, it does raise some interesting questions, as Josh Marshall asks in this post from Talking Points Memo:

(A)rguably the big story so far in the 2008 cycle is just how fast the race is developing — how quickly frontrunners are being annointed, how soon formal announcements are being made, how quickly people are dropping out, etc.

And I’m curious how much of this sped up cycle is due to blogs and web media. I don’t mean to ask whether this is the ‘netroots’ flexing its muscle, though that’s an interesting question in itself. But the pre-primary presidential winnowing process is largely a matter of buzz and a feedback loop between buzz, organzing and fundraising. People generate buzz, they get supporters, they get more money, that leads to more buzz, etc. Or in other cases, people have a lot of money. So they look formidable. And they get supporters and buzz, etc.

We can argue over whether money is driving buzz or vice versa. But a lot of the pre-primary phase is this process of sampling, often with relatively small sets of people. And the perceptions of those samples pick up steam and often become self-fulfilling. So is it the web and the more rapid sampling it allows — partly in fundraising but much more in buzz — that’s ramping the process forward and making it so fast?

I don’t have any answers, personally, but it is worth thinking about — especially with the primary season being condensed in 2008.

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

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

The mirage of reform

The Star-Ledger today offers a summary of the state’s tax reform effort that presents the last half year in a somewhat better light than I would.

Of the 98 recommendations made by four special joint committees, the paper says that about half were enacted as law. And while that maybe true from a technical standpoint, the most important were not and many of the other controversial items were either watered down in committee or between the release of the reports and the passage of the legislation.

Take the consolidation bill. The one that became law essentially created an advisory panel with authority to study the issue, but left the final decision to voters in the communities to be merged. Normally, I would never oppose giving voters a choice, but the history of municipal and school consolidation is one of failure and inaction, caused only partly by fiscal considerations. Other tangential issues — red herrings like the amorphous “identity,” as if villages like Kingston that are not independent municipalities lack identity — have come into play keeping the expensive array of overlapping and repetitive governments in place.

The bill originally on the table would have addressed that by giving the state Legislature and governor final say — the merger panel would recommend towns to consolidate and the state would act. That would have been infinitely better.

Go down the list: The ban on dual-office holding? Still waiting. New school aid formula? Wait until next year. State comptroller? Sort of — a far weaker comptroller was created than proposed.

The Legislature did manage to create a new, executive county superintendent — a silly idea that creates a new level of bureaucracy — and impose a set of tax levy caps destined to do little more than hamstring local governments and schools. Our best hope for the caps is that they create momentum for greater shared services and mergers — if you can’t spend, after all, you have to find other ways of providing services.

How would I grade the governor and Legislature at this point? I’d give them an incomplete — and make no mistake, this grade applies equally to Democrats and Republicans.

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

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Of titles and school board candidates

I received the following e-mail today:

Would you please explain to me why Harry Delgado is routinely also described as “South Brunswick Police Capt. Harry Delgado”, when other incumbents or others running for the school board for the first time are not also identified by their jobs? (see “Deadline Looms for Board“)

The answer has nothing to do with qualifications, Capt. Delgado’s or anyone else’s as the rest of the e-mail implied. Capt. Delgado — and all police officers — is identified by rank in all stories in the same way that all religious leaders carry their honorifics with them (it would be the Rev. Francis Hubbard whether we were writing about something going on at St. Barnabas Epsicopal Church or happened upon him while doing a story at a local ice cream shop).

We also refer to school board member Matthew Speesler as Dr. Speesler on second reference, even though his medical degree has nothing to do with his service on the board.

Politeness is part of it, but there is a practical reason for this with police officers, as well. Officers, though they work in shifts and can be said to be “off duty,” are always on the job.

I’m comfortable with the policy, but i’m willing to hear what everyone else thinks. Send me an e-mail.

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

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Delaying tactic:Budget puts off necessary reforms

I am trapped in the office, so I didn’t hear the governor’s address. But I have read it and have some thoughts — some of which should be familiar to those who have read my columns over the past year.

The proposed budget offers some good — $300 million to cover an expansion of the state’s earned income tax credit, a nominal increase in aid to schools and towns, money for stem cell and autism research, a reduction in the state workforce through attrition and his call to end “Christmas tree items,” or those spending items tacked on to a finished product without discussion. The rest of the budget address, however, glosses over a single fact: that the governor and state Legislature failed horribly in their attempts to reform state government.

The governor speaks of “$9 million for the new comptroller’s office to root out waste, prevent fraud and reduce spending.” But the comptroller will have few real powers.

He speaks of the new property tax credits — which will offers savings this year, but are unsustainable beyond this year as they are currently constituted.

He speaks of a new $20 million consolidation fund “to provide meaningful incentives for schools and local governments to share services and reduce costs,” but doesn’t acknowledge that the consolidation panel is just advisory and unlikely to result in much real streamlining.

The biggest question mark, however, remains his commitment to “asset monetarization,” essentially using state assets to generate short-term cash. He makes an interesting case, arguing that it represents the only way the state can raise the kind of revenue necessary to provide the programs desired while also offering property tax relief.

The one option that is new and that we are now studying is asset monetization. It’s something that has been implemented in other states and, I can assure you, successfully around the globe. I think it’s fair to say that most governmental entities across the country, led by Democrats and Republicans, are examining its feasibility and appropriateness.

The economic potential from restructuring the state’s interest in our asset portfoliois too significant to ignore, whether that asset is the Turnpike, the lottery, naming rights, air rights, or whatever.

Potentially, asset monetization could reset the state’s finances by dramatically reducing our debt burden, and consequently reducing debt service.

Monetization could free up as much as a billion dollars or more in every year’s budget — long into the future.

Sounds good on the surface, but the potential pitfalls — loss of control over the “asset” (toll hikes and maintenance on the Turnpike and Parkway, for instance) — are hard to quantify. The issue remains how we account for the hidden costs and the nonmonetary costs. The governor address this issue this way:

Make no mistake – with any proposal, we would insist on protective conditions.

If we can’t ensure that the high standards of operations and maintenance will continue, we won’t proceed.

If we can’t ensure public safety will be maintained, we won’t proceed.

If we can’t ensure the state will maintain oversight in the governance of the asset, we won’t proceed.

If we can’t ensure that price increases will be predictable and reasonable, we won’t proceed.

I’m not feeling any more confident about the proposal, nor am I convinced that the choices the governor is taking off the table — income tax increases and streamlining of government — are as unpalatable as he thinks.

A broader-based progressive income tax coupled with a significant reduction in property taxes, forced municipal mergers and regionalization, elimination of county government taken together could go a long way toward fixing our problems.

In the end, “asset monetarization” may still need to be considered — I hope not — but at least we will have forced a reconsideration of New Jersey government before being forced down that path. To sell the Turnpike first will only put off the necessary reforms.

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

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.