Chris Christie appears likely to become the Republican nominee for governor in June and, according to the most recent polls, possibly the state’s next governor.
If this is to occur, it appears that it will be based on three things: an inflated reputation as a corruption buster, Gov. Jon Corzine’s inability to connect with voters and convince them that hte pain he is peddling is necessary and the general disrepair in which we find our state government.
It certainly won’t be because he is offering legitimate alternatives. He isn’t.
Consider Al Doblin’s column in The Record, which takes a look at what Christie has been saying in recent weeks:
Last week, Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie went on The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Christie isn’t happy with Governor Corzine’s budget. He wants Corzine to go after waste, fraud and abuse. Christie said that he if were governor, he wouldn’t be increasing taxes and that Corzine has offered New Jerseyans “false choices” in what has to be sacrificed to retain other services.
Christie is skillful with a sound bite. Snap, crackle and pop, he has. Details are another issue.
Lehrer repeatedly asked Christie to name specific programs he would cut as governor. While Christie hammered away on waste, fraud and abuse, Lehrer countered that there are not billions of dollars lost to waste, fraud and abuse in the state budget. He wanted specifics.
Christie explained that wasn’t his job. His job as a candidate was to critique Corzine.
That, of course, is too easy. The fact is that Christie, were h to become governor, will have to make difficult choices. He has a responsibility at least to outline the philosophy he would use when determining what he would do.
I have covered local governments — and local elections — for the last 19 years and it always has driven me crazy when challengers would come in to our office and respond to questions about budgeting, taxes and local programs by saying a) I’m not in office, so I don’t have the information, b) my opponent is making the wrong decisions and I’ll do things differently (but I won’t or can’t tell you how) or c) I’ll go through the budget with a fine tooth comb and eliminate all waste.
Sounds real good, I guess, but it is completely meaningless, a copout. The budget is a public document that offers as detailed an outline as one can find of what public officials believe are important. Candidates have a responsibility to read it. They have a responsibility to formulate specific criticisms and offer a sense of what their budgets would look like.
Which brings me back to Chris Christie and Doblin’s column. From Doblin:
The state budget is all about choices. In his budget, the governor laid out his priorities. He wants to keep funding for education, health care and seniors intact as much as possible. And he is willing to raise some taxes and cut funding from other programs to accomplish that.
Massive layoffs of state workers sounds like an easy budget fix. Christie seems to indicate that he would do that as governor – reduce the state’s workforce. State employees have a right to know whether a Christie administration would make an across-the-board cut that would throw many of them onto unemployment rolls. Many state employees would be laid off according to their seniority in the system. The people left may not be the best-suited for the jobs they have the seniority to fill. That would impact the quality of services provided by the state.
Just as importantly, what is it that Christie believes is important? Gov. Christie Todd Whitman called herself an environmentalists, but gutted the Department of Environmental Protection, making it more difficult for the DEP to do its job. She also did away with the public advocate and created a business ombudsman post — two moves that summed up her philosophy fairly well.
What of Christie? Well, he is playing the political game and avoiding saying anything that might anger any part of the electorate.
Hank Kalet 