NJinsight.com

Egypt and Israel – Two New Jersey Stories

2011-02-18T11:47:00.000-05:00

By Alan Steinberg | January 31st, 2011 - 10:15am

I am following the street uprisings in Egypt with a most profound sense of apprehension. There is no doubt in my mind as to the ultimate dreadful outcome.

President Hosni Mubarak will be deposed within the next three months. Although leading dissident and former United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei will be the new nominal leader of the Egyptian government, real power will be held by the Muslim Brotherhood. One can expect that within days after the Muslim Brotherhood gains control, the Egyptian government will sever diplomatic relations with Israel and withdraw its recognition of the Jewish State’s right to exist.

Just as Iran serves as a base for Shiite Islamic terrorism, Egypt will serve as a base for Sunni Islamic terrorism. Iran presently is the patron of the terrorist Hezbollah forces in Lebanon, and Egypt will henceforth be the patron for Hamas terrorist forces in Gaza. While Mubarak blocked access to forces attempting to provide weapons to Hamas from the Sinai, one can expect that the Sinai will now become a superhighway through which Hamas will be supplied the most sophisticated terrorist military equipment.

Historically, there has been real antipathy between Sunni and Shiite nations, as exemplified by the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. The hatred that Sunni and Shiite Muslim fundamentalists feel towards Israel, however, has resulted in recent collaboration between the terrorist Shiite state of Iran and the terrorist Sunni forces of Hamas. One can expect that eventually, the historic animus between Sunni and Shiite Muslims will result in Egypt and Iran becoming bitter adversarial nations.

Sunni and Shiite Muslim fundamentalists both want to destroy Israel and expel the Jews from the Middle East, however. Accordingly, when it comes to Israel, the new government in Egypt and the government in Iran will cooperate in efforts to utilize their respective terrorist subsidiaries, Hamas and Hezbollah to make life unbearable for the people of Israel.

Accordingly, within the next few years, Israel will be compelled to reoccupy Gaza to crush Hamas terrorism. Eventually, this will bring Israel into conflict with Egypt.

My pessimistic analysis is not only based on my perspective as a strong Jewish supporter of Israel.

As an undergraduate at Northwestern University, I studied the Arab world in depth under the tutelage of the late Dr. Ibrahim Abu-LuGhod, a Palestinian Arab who was one of the two representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) who met with former Secretary of State George Shultz after the United States opened diplomatic contacts with the PLO at the end of the Reagan administration, the other representative being the late Dr. Edward Said of Columbia University.

Under Dr. Abu-LuGhod’s direction, I completed an independent study course on the politics of the Arab world. With his assistance, I wrote my political science honors thesis on the Palestinian Arab nationalist movement.

Sadly, my knowledge of the Middle East leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the peace between Israel and Egypt, which has existed since 1977 and for which a great man, former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat gave his life, will soon be at its end. Many observers have termed it a “cold peace”.

Two New Jersey stories demonstrate, however, that this peace was much warmer than most people realize. The first story involved former Governor Christie Whitman, in whose administration I proudly served, an excellent governor and a classy and great lady. The second story involved a person I love most dearly and of whom I am most proud, my son Neil.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I served as Assistant Commissioner of the former Department of Commerce and Economic Development during the first term of the Whitman administration and as Executive Director of the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission during the second term. I also had another role in which I served unofficially as a liaison for Governor Whitman with the New Jersey Jewish community.

In this role, I reviewed and gave recommendations on invitations Governor Whitman received to appear before Jewish religious and secular organizations. Her speechwriters also sent to me for my review speeches to be presented before Jewish audiences. Finally, I was often a “point person” with whom Jewish leaders met to convey to the Governor their concerns about various issues affecting the Jewish community.

All this was a labor of love for me. I can say without hyperbole that Governor Whitman had the best relationship with a statewide Jewish community of any governor in the nation during her tenure. The strong support she received from the Jewish community was a key factor in her reelection in 1997.

Governor Whitman’s personal and governmental relationship with the State of Israel was unique among American governors of her era. It began with her trip to Israel in 1992, prior to her becoming governor in 1994. During her initial visit to Israel, Israeli leaders such as the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin actually sought her friendship. Once elected as governor, Whitman became the national leader among American governors on economic development issues. This was a key factor in the increasing trade and mutual investment between New Jersey and Israeli businesses during the 1990s.

I served as one of the coordinators of Governor Whitman’s 1996 trade mission to Israel in which over one hundred companies participated, together with various New Jersey governmental and political leaders and media. This trip took place twenty-one months after the Whitman administration opened New Jersey’s first trade office in Israel in the city of Ra’anana.

Thus, it should not have surprised me how Governor Whitman was received by Israelis on that trip as a beloved American leader. The Jerusalem Post ran a story about her as a future American President. Everywhere she went, Israelis enthusiastically wanted to greet her.

The adulation of the Israeli public for Christie Whitman did not stop with that trade mission. Two years later, in 1998, I was informed that the Orthodox Jewish outreach organization, Aish HaTorah had invited her to Jerusalem to receive their Friend of Zion Award.

I recommended with alacrity that Governor Whitman accept this award. Aish HaTorah has an outstanding reputation in both Israel and the United States for not only its religious outreach but also its good communal works. The organization has received the endorsement of both Jewish and Gentile prominent American politicians and show business people.

In the process of planning the trip, I received a phone call from the Governor’s office as to the possibility of her visiting Egypt after the Jerusalem Aish HaTorah event. This had been suggested by one of Governor Whitman’s friends.

The trip to Egypt was easily arranged for Governor Whitman by her close Israeli friend, Ze’ev Bielski, the then Mayor of Ra’anana and today a member of the K’nesset, Israel’s parliament. The fact that Governor Whitman was coming to Egypt from Israel, a nation with whom Egypt had fought four wars made no difference. Her trip to Egypt went smoothly, and the Egyptians with whom she met treated her most warmly.

Regardless of the state of relations then existing between the governments of Israel and Egypt, it was clear from the Whitman visit and the ease of arranging the trip between Bielski and his Egyptian counterparts that relations between the peoples of Israel and Egypt had improved considerably since the Sadat 1977 visit to Jerusalem. How much relations had warmed between the two peoples became abundantly clear to me as a result of experiences of my son, Neil, in Israel during the academic year of 2000-2001.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Neil graduated from the University of Maryland in 2002 with a double degree in government and psychology. He spent his junior year, 2000-2001 in the University Study-Abroad Program as a student in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Rothberg International School.

That academic year was a most difficult one for the Rothberg International School. Another Palestinian Arab intifada began with the Temple Mount Palestinian Arab riots in September, 2000, which Neil saw from his dorm on Mount Scopus and described to me over the phone as they were happening.

As a result of the intifada, the Rothberg School incurred a withdrawal of 300 of its 400 students during that academic year of 2000-2001. I am proud that Neil was one of the 100 students who remained enrolled in the Rothberg School throughout that entire academic year.

I must say that during that year, I felt more tension than Neil. Every time I would read on the Internet about some terrorist attack in Jerusalem, I would call him. He was fine – I was a nervous wreck.

One time during the spring of 2001, Neil had an academic break of ten days. I called him from New Jersey and asked where he was going. He responded, “To Dahab.”

I asked him, “Where’s Dahab? I never heard of that place?”

He responded, “It’s a resort in the Sinai, in Egypt.”

I shouted into the phone loud enough for him to hear me in Jerusalem, “How can you go to Egypt in the middle of all these tensions between Israel and the Arab world?”

“Dad, I’ve been to Dahab before. The people are very friendly to Israelis and Jewish tourists, trust me.”

My next call was to Michael Reiner, an Israeli close friend of Governor Whitman and the director of the New Jersey Trade Office in Ra’anana. I asked him, “Michael, how safe is it for my son to be travelling to Dahab?”

Michael answered without hesitation, “Your son is safer in Dahab than he would be if he stayed in Jerusalem.”

Michael was right. Neil went to Dahab for a week, and the Egyptians treated him with the utmost of friendliness and hospitality.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sadly, the era of good feeling between Israelis and Egyptians, as exemplified by the experiences of former New Jersey Governor Christie Whitman and former New Jerseyan (now a New Yorker) Neil Steinberg, is now over, due to the fanaticism of the Islamic fundamentalists who will soon control Egypt.

I hold no brief for Hosni Mubarak. His failure to democratize his regime and improve living conditions for the Egyptian people created conditions in which the Muslim Brotherhood could seize power. In the words of former U.S. President John F. Kennedy, those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.

That the members of the Muslim Brotherhood are fundamentalist extremist supporters of terrorism, however, is beyond dispute. Even the late former Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser, a dedicated Pan-Arabist who opposed Israel and Zionism vigorously, wanted nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood and banned the movement in 1954.

It is true that the Muslim Brotherhood is not the only group participating in the current uprisings in Egypt. There are many good rank and file citizens of Egypt who are participating in these protests due to their disgust with the autocratic Mubarak regime and the miserable living conditions and poverty for most Egyptians.

It is also true that the Muslim Brotherhood has muted its religious message recently in the interest of political pragmatism. Yet there is no doubt of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ultimate goals in the domestic and international sphere: 1) the transformation of Egypt into a nation governed strictly by a fundamentalist implementation of Sharia, the sacred Islamic law; and 2) the destruction of the State of Israel.

Finally, as I stated above, I have no doubt that due to their organizational and political effectiveness, the Muslim Brotherhood will soon attain control of the Egyptian government, reducing Mohamed ElBaradei to figurehead status.

Shiite Muslim fundamentalists control Iran, and Sunni Muslim fundamentalists will soon control Egypt. My fear is that the extreme fundamentalist branch of the Sunni Wahhabi movement may soon transform the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia into the Islamic Republic of Saudi Arabia.

We are moving into a brave new world in the Middle East – a most frightening one. I have lived through three wars between Israel and Egypt (1956, 1967, and 1973) and a peace which lasted 34 years. I am most fearful as to what the future holds between Israelis and Egyptians.

Alan J. Steinberg served as Regional Administrator of Region 2 EPA during the administration of former President George W. Bush. Region 2 EPA consists of the states of New York and New Jersey, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and eight federally recognized Indian nations. Under former New Jersey Governor Christie Whitman, he served as Executive Director of the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission. He currently serves on the political science faculty of Monmouth University.

‘Blood libel’: An Orthodox Jew defends Sarah Palin

2011-02-18T11:44:00.000-05:00

BY ALAN J. STEINBERG

COMMENTARY

Let me state at the outset that I am not a supporter of Sarah Palin for President. I have publicly in print criticized her on two grounds: 1) her inability — or perhaps unwillingness — to assemble a first rate team of political and policy advisors; and 2) her lack of intellectual curiosity about major foreign and domestic policy issues. Ronald Reagan, with whom she is often compared due to their common characteristic of excellent communication skills, had neither of these two flaws.

I have always made my two criticisms of Palin, however, with a substantial measure of regret. One must distinguish intellectualism from intelligence. Palin does have the intelligence to comprehend complex issues — she demonstrated this as governor of Alaska in dealing with complicated energy matters. Furthermore, her communication skills and her undeniable leadership qualities would serve her well as President of the United States.

Finally, it must be said that mainstream liberal media brazenly display an unabashed reprehensible sexism towards politically ideological conservatives like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. This sexism is not in evidence when liberal journalists laud Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer as true American heroines.

Palin is now under fire for a comment she made in a videotaped statement on Wednesday, January 12, 2011 regarding the tragic shootings in Tucson, Arizona this past weekend. In discussing what she accurately described as "irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event", she stated the following:

"But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."

The former Alaska governor's use of the words "blood libel" was not politically astute. If she had been advised by a top quality political advisor team, she never would have used those two words.

The use of the words "blood libel" gave her ideological detractors a target against which to focus all their partisan vitriol. They will defame her as at best, insensitive to the Jewish history of persecution and at worst, an anti-Semite. Both of these charges are contemptible slanders. Despite the fact that Sarah Palin has been an elected politician in a state with very few Jews, she has been an outspoken supporter of the State of Israel and a staunch opponent of anti-Semitism.

Again, however, the question remains: Was Palin's use of the phrase "blood libel" inappropriate? That question was answered in a totally dispositive manner by Alan Dershowitz, a principled liberal lawyer and Harvard Law School professor of unquestionable integrity. Dershowitz, who has an Orthodox Jewish background and is an internationally renowned advocate for the State of Israel issued the following statement on the Palin "blood libel" controversy:

"The term ‘blood libel' has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People, its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term."

There is nothing that one can add to such words of exquisite wisdom. Yet there are two other points that I must make.

The first is the outrage I feel towards my fellow Jews who have mindlessly condemned Palin. The major case which stands out is that of Abe Foxman, Executive Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), who formally castigated Palin on the same day of her statement. Because of his position at ADL, his reprimand of Palin is being given unwarranted credibility by the media.

The ADL has a proud tradition of fighting bigotry against all races, colors, and creeds. Mr. Foxman's predecessor, Nathan Perlmutter was a towering figure in American Jewish history, without political bias or any appearance of self-aggrandizement.

By contrast, Foxman lost all credibility with a large portion of the Jewish community when he embarked in 1998 on a vituperative campaign of character assassination against Mort Klein and the organization over which he presides, the Zionist Organization of America.

In that year, Klein had courageously opposed the appointment of John Roth to head the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. Roth, a professor at Claremont McKenna College, had written articles comparing Israeli policies towards the Palestinians with the Nazi treatment of the Jews. Foxman in early 1998 supported the Roth appointment and focussed his efforts on the destruction of Klein's stature in the Jewish community.

Klein's efforts, however, soon resulted in a majority of the Jewish community opposing the Roth appointment. In view of this trend in Jewish public opinion, Foxman changed his position to opposition of the Roth nomination, without ever apologizing for his vitriolic attacks on Klein.

Those of us who remember Foxman's outrageous conduct during the Roth controversy are not surprised at his shameful actions in rebuking Sarah Palin, a true friend of the Jewish community and Israel.

The second aspect of the Palin "blood libel" controversy is the anger I feel towards those practitioners of McCarthyism of the Left, most notably Paul Krugman, Jane Fonda, and Keith Olbermann, who have slandered conservatives like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Party movement as being responsible for the Tucson tragedy. Their real motive is to attempt to silence, by intimidation, character assassination, or otherwise, those who vigorously disagree with their leftist agenda.

Sarah Palin's statement of January 12 was actually a courageous statement of American values which I, as an Orthodox Jew hold dear: the freedom to practice my religion of Torah, in which I find inner peace and deep spirituality, and the freedom to passionately express my opinions, without fear of slander or vilification. She deserves commendation, not condemnation, from the American public for her attempts to be a voice of reason at a time of deep anger and political polarization.

Indeed, it would be a tragedy if the career of Sarah Palin was ended due to the shameful practitioners of McCarthyism of the Left who are attempting to use the Tucson tragedy as a means to suppress and delegitimize those who have the courage to dissent from their discredited leftist ideology.

I will always be proud of serving in the administration of George W. Bush

2010-11-09T20:38:00.001-05:00

Tuesday, 09 November 2010 11:35

COMMENTARY

I have little doubt that future historians will ultimately judge our 43rd President, George W. Bush far more favorably than his contemporaries. The purpose of this column, however, is not to discuss his decisions or policies.

We senior officials in the administration of George W. Bush knew well his profound decency, his courage, his sensitivity, his integrity, his sincerity, and his remarkable humility for a person of his high stature in American society. These were qualities, however, that somehow he was unable to project in a State-of-the-Union address or in a major television speech before the nation. When you had an intimate one-on-one conversation with him or a meeting with him in a small group, it was another matter altogether.

Last night, however, in his televised conversation with Matt Lauer about his forthcoming book, Decision Points, I think at long last George W. Bush conveyed to the American public the qualities that we senior Bush 43 officials found so endearing. For me, it was a moment of enormous pride.

This is a former President who does not point fingers at somebody else for matters that went wrong during his administration. This is a former President who will answer any question about his administration forthrightly, without dissembling. Finally, this is a former President of true class who refuses to criticize his successor, Barack Obama, despite the latter's continuous denigration of President Bush that began literally on his first day in office.

As I listened to President Bush last night, I remembered the last time I saw him, Wednesday, January 7, 2009.

Bush administration appointees had been invited to Washington for a private farewell speech by the President. For me, this was also during a difficult emotional period of my life, and not just due to my impending departure as Regional Administrator of Region 2 EPA.

My wife, Lynne, was in New York University hospital, having undergone successful cancer surgery on January 5, 2009 that had saved her life. She insisted that I go to Washington, noting that her daughters could keep her company and take care of her needs during the brief period that I would be away.

Lynne was a major fan of George W. Bush for two reasons.

First, George W. Bush was a strong and unwavering supporter of the State of Israel. It is remarkable that the two Presidents who were the most supportive of Israel, Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush, were both from the state of Texas.

The second reason was something that had occurred some years before.

Lynne is a high school math teacher — a truly outstanding professional and master teacher. I had introduced her to President Bush years earlier by saying, "Lynne is a teacher." Without hesitation, he responded, "Thank you for being a teacher."

Teaching and nursing are two professions whose practitioners do an enormous amount of good for humanity. Yet these are perhaps the two most unappreciated professions.

So when George W. Bush said to Lynne those words, he made her a lifelong fan. His sincerity could not be doubted, and his commitment to the education of America's children was one of his paramount priorities.

Accordingly, with Lynne's blessing, I went to Washington to hear President George W. Bush say farewell to us who had served him. He was introduced by his press secretary Dana Perino, who wept as she concluded by saying, "he is also a wonderful man".

The George W. Bush we then heard was a man totally at peace with himself. He spoke with humor and pride, while acknowledging the areas where our administration had not succeeded. Yet he was without regret, because he knew, as he stated to Matt Lauer last night, that he had given his very best and honorable effort in office.

After the speech, I turned to a fellow administration official and expressed my frustration that George W. Bush had never been able to connect with the American public the way he had with us in the room that morning.

George W. Bush had the opportunity last night at long last to forge this connection with the American public. He made the most of it. Millions of Americans now know why those of us who served George W. Bush loved him. Indeed, outside of my faith and family, I am most proud in life of having served in the administration of a great American, George W. Bush.

Alan J. Steinberg served as Regional Administrator of Region 2 EPA during the administration of former President George W. Bush. Region 2 EPA consists of the states of New York and New Jersey, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and seven federally recognized Indian nations. He currently serves on the political science faculty of Monmouth University.

‘The Soprano State’ and the world of political documentary films

2010-11-08T22:24:00.000-05:00

BY ALAN J. STEINBERG

COMMENTARY

We live in an era of ever changing political media. "Political media" are productions in support of a particular issue viewpoint or a political candidate.

When I first became an active player in political campaigns three decades ago, political media consisted primarily of direct mail and radio communications. Political television advertising was still in its infancy. In statewide races, you would see a smattering of thirty second television commercial spots near the end of a campaign. The negative aspects of these commercials were relatively muted as compared with those of today.

In this era, we are overwhelmed with a panoply of political media of remarkable sophistication, including the latest in websites and highly refined email campaigns. The effectiveness of political documentary films, a relatively recent genre, is based upon the ability to first attract a viewing audience and then hold its interest for as long as an hour and one half.

In terms of this test, I have little doubt that the movie, "The Soprano State, Part One" will achieve remarkable box office and artistic success, perhaps an Oscar award as well. The movie was based upon the book, "The Soprano State," authored by journalists Bob Ingle and Sandy McClure and published in 2008. I was honored to be invited to its world premiere last Monday evening, October 18, 2010, at the Ziegfeld Theatre in Manhattan, and I left with the feeling that I will watch this movie again and again.

The most noteworthy political documentary film of this era has been Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." While that film was replete with factual errors, it did succeed in stimulating interest in the climate change issue. I have not seen the recently released film, "Waiting for Superman," which focuses on the alleged failures of the American education system. From what I have read, however, "Waiting for Superman," directed also by "An Inconvenient Truth" director Davis Guggenheim, has the potential of skyrocketing the national stature of Michelle Rhee, the soon to be departed Chancellor of the District of Columbia public school system. On a greater macro level, Superman may also deepen the widening rift within the Democratic Party between public employee unions and liberal reformers.

I believe that "The Soprano State" will attract a wider audience than either "An Inconvenient Truth" or "Waiting for Superman" for two reasons.

The first is the colorful nature of the subject: New Jersey political corruption. The widespread and diversified nature of political corruption in New Jersey hardly is a source of pride for Garden State residents. Yet there is no doubt that Americans both within and outside New Jersey are intrigued by the character of the corrupt actors and the nature of their crimes. The landmark HBO television series, "The Sopranos," attracted millions of loyal television viewers throughout the nation over the past decade, and their memories of this fictional series will serve to whet their appetites to see the non-fictional real life New Jersey characters and actual events.

The second reason for the film's success will be its deserved hero, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

Even before he was elected Governor in November, 2009, Chris Christie had established himself as the finest U.S. Attorney in the history of New Jersey. His success in combating corruption far exceeded that of any previous law enforcement official in the Garden State. Not since New York's Thomas E. Dewey had any prosecutor in the Northeastern United States attracted such national attention.

As Governor, Christie's fiscal and education initiatives, together with his uniquely straightforward style, have resulted in his becoming the subject of speculation as a possible Presidential nominee. The Governor has made it abundantly clear that he will not be a Republican candidate for President or Vice President in 2012. Yet Christie is young enough to be a candidate at some future point, and "The Soprano State, Part One" will doubtless attract viewers eager to learn more about New Jersey's remarkable Governor.

The film artistically is first rate. The scenes are pieced together brilliantly, and the interviews with key New Jersey governmental and political figures reveal vividly the unique aspects of New Jersey's culture of corruption. Character actor Tony Darrow, known for his role in the HBO "Sopranos" is ideal as the narrator of the film.

Yet there were two aspects of the film that viewers at the Monday night premiere, including myself, found puzzling.

The first was the disparity between the book and the movie in the way former U.S. Senator Robert Torricelli is portrayed. In the book, Ingle and McClure focus on allegations of Torricelli misconduct during his tenure as U.S. Senator. Yet no mention of these allegations is made in the movie. On the contrary, Torricelli is actually interviewed in the film regarding the reasons for New Jersey's culture of corruption. In this regard, he comes across in the movie as a virtual ethical sage, while the Torricelli of the book is an alleged ethical transgressor.

The second aspect is with regard to former state Senator and Assembly Speaker Joe Doria (D-Hudson). In the July, 2009 Corruption Thursday arrests, Doria's home was raided; yet he was never charged with any crime or ethical violation. The film makes mention of the raid and implies that Doria was guilty of something not disclosed. This appears to be an unjust depiction, especially when virtually every other subject of criticism in the movie, i.e. Sharpe James, Wayne Bryant, Jim Treffinger, Charles Kushner, et.als. was actually convicted of some crime. It does not seem fair to mention the uncharged Doria in the same context.

Withal, this movie is an artistic triumph and a film that will serve to increase citizen awareness and hopefully condemnation of the culture of corruption that has thrived in New Jersey for too long. Special kudos must be given to Steve Kalafer, the principal producer of this film. Kalafer is one of the finest, most civic motivated citizens of New Jersey I have met in my three decades in government and politics. In producing this film, he again contributed to the betterment of the quality of life in the Garden State.

So I do recommend that you see this movie. Do not be surprised if this film receives an Oscar for Best Documentary Film at the 2011 Oscars.

Alan J. Steinberg served as Regional Administrator of Region 2 EPA during the administration of former President George W. Bush. Region 2 EPA consists of the states of New York and New Jersey, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and seven federally recognized Indian nations. Under former New Jersey Governor Christie Whitman, he served as Executive Director of the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission.

The U.S. Senate Races: Will the GOP Have a Lieberman Option?

2010-11-08T22:22:00.000-05:00

By Alan Steinberg | October 24th, 2010 - 12:38pm

Nate Silver of the FiveThirtyEight Blog in the New York Times is considered by many to be America’s leading election forecaster. He currently gives the Republicans a better than 50% chance of winning eight U.S. Senate seats currently held by Democrats, specifically in the following states: Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, North Dakota, Colorado, and Nevada.

In the case of a ninth U.S. Senate seat currently held by the Democrats (West Virginia), Silver gives the GOP a fifty percent chance of victory. He does not give the Democrats a better than 11 percent chance of winning a single Senate seat currently held by a Republican.

If the Republicans win all nine of the races mentioned above, each party will have 50 U.S. Senate seats. Vice President Joe Biden would be the tie breaker, and the Democrats would thus retain control of the United States Senate. That is, unless Democratic U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut) switches parties and joins the Republicans, giving the GOP a 51-49 edge.

I have no doubt that if the November elections result in a 50-50 Senate, the Republicans will make every effort to persuade Senator Lieberman to join the GOP. Is there a realistic possibility of his making such a switch? I truly think so.

On domestic issues, Lieberman endorses, for the most part, the initiatives of the Obama administration and the Senate Democrats. On foreign policy and defense issues, however, Lieberman is solidly in support of Republican positions, particularly on Israel and the Middle East.

Over the past four years, Lieberman has in many ways found more common cause with Republicans than Democrats. In 2006, Lieberman, seeking reelection to a fourth term as U.S. Senator, was defeated by ultra-liberal Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Democratic primary. The Senator won reelection as an independent, however, with far more support from nationally prominent Republicans, such as the late Jack Kemp, Newt Gingrich, and Rudy Giuliani, than Democrats. In 2008, Lieberman supported Republican John McCain for President.

After both the 2006 and 2008 elections, Lieberman considered switching to the GOP, but on both occasions decided to remain with the Democrats. This time, Lieberman’s decision will be based upon whether he intends to run for reelection in 2012.

A poll taken by Public Policy Polling (PPP) in Connecticut in January, 2010 showed Lieberman’s popularity to be at an all time low in the Nutmeg State. Lieberman’s favorability ratings were negative throughout the political spectrum, 39%-48 % among Republicans, 32%-61% among Independents, and a shocking 14%-81% among Democrats.

This poll was taken shortly after Lieberman’s highly publicized indecision on ObamaCare. While he finally voted for the legislation, his equivocations alienated virtually every sector of the Connecticut body politic. It certainly is possible that a new poll would produce substantially different numbers.

Still, it is clear that Lieberman has a far better chance to be reelected as a Republican. It is a virtual certainty that he would lose the 2012 Connecticut U.S. Senate Democratic primary. By contrast, it is highly likely that if Lieberman switches parties, both leading national and Connecticut Republicans will ensure that he will have no serious 2012 Connecticut Republican primary opposition.

So if Joe Lieberman decides to run for reelection in 2012, there is a better than even chance that he will join the GOP. This switch may well give the Republicans control of the United States Senate.

Alan J. Steinberg served as Regional Administrator of Region 2 EPA during the administration of former President George W. Bush. Region 2 EPA consists of the states of New York and New Jersey, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and seven federally recognized Indian nations. Under former New Jersey Governor Christie Whitman, he served as Executive Director of the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission.

I remember when the San Francisco Giants played in New York

2010-11-08T22:20:00.000-05:00

BY ALAN J. STEINBERG

COMMENTARY

The 2010 World Series. Or, as Casey Stengel used to call it, the World Serious.

Texas Rangers versus the San Francisco Giants. I am having a difficult time deciding whom I will root for.

I served in the administration of former President George W. Bush, and I maintain a strong loyalty to him. The former President was once an owner of the Texas Rangers, and he remains one of their leading fans. It would delight me to see him on television in the winning locker room of the World Champion Texas Rangers.

Baseball is a game of nostalgia, however, and I have vivid memories of the Giants, dating all the way back to when they played in Manhattan. Their all time greatest star was also the finest player I ever saw, Willie Mays. It would bring me to tears to see him in the winning locker room of the World Champion San Francisco Giants.

So I can't make decision as to which team I will support.

My first year as a baseball fan was 1955. The Giants played in New York's late, lamented, and legendary Polo Grounds in Harlem. They were the reigning World Champions, having defeated the highly favored Cleveland Indians in four straight games in the 1954 World Series.

That was the World Series of THE CATCH — the over-the-shoulder Willie Mays catch in deep center field off the bat of Vic Wertz. His throw after the catch was even more spectacular. The Polo Grounds was 480 feet to straight-away center field, and Willie patrolled it as if he owned it.

The 1954 New York Giants were managed by my all-time favorite manager, Leo Durocher. Leo was a real character — he probably was the greatest womanizer in the history of professional sports! He also, however, was not without strength of character. He took a firm stance against the Brooklyn Dodger players in 1947 who signed a petition refusing to play with Jackie Robinson. Leo was a true father figure to Willie Mays, reassuring him when he was slumping at the plate in his early days at the Polo Grounds. And nobody was a better strategist of the National Pastime than Leo the Lip, Leo Ernest Durocher.

One of the things I remember about 1955 was the first commercial by a baseball player I ever saw on television. The product was P.F. Flyers, and the player making the endorsement was one of the Giants' pitching stars of the 1954 World Series, lefty Johnny Antonelli. P.F. Flyers was a leading brand of what we then called tennis shoes. Today, people call them sneakers.

In 1956, the baseball New York Giants were participants in another landmark event in my life. On July 1, 1956, my dad took me to a doubleheader at Pittsburgh's Forbes Field between the Pirates and Giants. In the second game of the twin bill, the Giants' third baseman, Foster Castleman hit the first Major League home run I ever saw in person.

My father would actually meet Foster Castleman fifteen years later. The former Giant moved to Cincinnati and became a salesman for the same trouser company that employed my father, Wright Slacks. Dad told Foster what a major milestone his home run had been in my life.

The Giants did not draw very well in the Polo Grounds during the 1950s, even when they won it all in 1954. The ball club was owned by Horace Stoneham, one of the major drinkers of Major League Baseball. Stoneham had planned to move the ball club to Minneapolis, the site of his top farm club.

Across town, however, in Brooklyn, the Dodgers, the most profitable ball club in the National League, were unable to obtain the site they wanted for their new ball park at the intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues. Their efforts to have the land condemned and granted to them were opposed by Robert Moses, the then de facto despotic ruler of New York City. Moses wanted a ball park built for the Dodgers at the site in Queens which later became the location of Shea Stadium.

O'Malley wanted no part of Queens. If he couldn't get his stadium in Brooklyn, he decided that he might as well move his ball club to Los Angeles. Such a move was not practicable, however, unless O'Malley could persuade another team owner to move his ball club to San Francisco.

So in early 1957, O'Malley called Stoneham and asked why they both couldn't move their teams together to California. Stoneham agreed and dropped his plans to move his club to Minneapolis. Like the famous Al Jolson song, it was California, Here We Come for both owners. In 1958, the Brooklyn Dodgers became the Los Angeles Dodgers, and the New York Giants became the San Francisco Giants.

I often have occasion to drive by the sites of both the Polo Grounds and Brooklyn's Ebbets Field. When I do, I think of the Frank Sinatra song, "There Used to Be a Ballpark Right Here."

In Los Angeles, the Dodgers have won five World Championships. In San Francisco, the Giants have never won once. The 1954 World Championship was the last World Series won by the Giants.

I do remember the time when the San Francisco Giants came very close to winning a World Championship. It was the seventh game of the 1962 World Series between the Giants and the New York Yankees at San Francisco's Candlestick Park. I watched that game on television.

It was the bottom of the ninth inning. The Giants had men on second and third. Willie McCovey, one of the game's most feared hitters, was up for the Giants.

On the mound for the Yankees was Ralph Terry. Two years earlier, Ralph had given up the homer to Bill Mazeroski that won the World Series for the Pittsburgh Pirates over the Bronx Bombers. If McCovey got a hit, both runs would score, and the Giants would win the World Series. Ralph Terry would then be remembered as the man who lost two World Series seventh games, both in the bottom of the ninth inning.

Terry delivered his pitch. McCovey hit a hard line drive, but right into the glove of the leaping Yankee second baseman, Bobby Richardson. Ralph Terry was saved from ignominy.

The Giants had many top flight ball players during those early San Francisco years — McCovey, Orlando Cepeda, Juan Marichal, and Gaylord Perry, all of whom are members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. None was nearly as great, however, as the man I remember from the Polo Grounds as the Say Hey kid, Willie Mays.

Other members of that 1954 World Champion New York Giant ball club are still alive, including Monte Irvin, Alvin Dark, Johnny Antonelli, and Don Mueller. It would be great to see them surrounding Willie in the 2010 San Francisco Giants World Championship locker room.

President Bush, we don't know whether Willie will have this opportunity again. Would you mind waiting one more year for a World Championship?

And one more thing, Mr. President: If Willie Mays is in the locker room of the World Champion San Francisco Giants, the ghost of Leo Ernest Durocher will be there, too.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Alan J. Steinberg served as Regional Administrator of Region 2 EPA during the administration of former President George W. Bush. Region 2 EPA consists of the states of New York and New Jersey, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and seven federally recognized Indian nations. Under former New Jersey Governor Christie Whitman, he served as Executive Director of the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission.

If GOP Captures the House, Frelinghuysen and Garrett Become Major National Players

2010-08-27T13:09:00.000-04:00

By Alan Steinberg | August 23rd, 2010 - 1:08pm

From now until Election Day, 2010, I will be focusing my columns on the United States Senate and House of Representatives races, both inside and outside New Jersey. In analyzing the races, I will rely primarily on two tools: 1) the RealClearPolitics.com website; and 2) the Intrade prediction markets.

The RealClearPolitics.com website averages all recent polls to arrive at its own poll estimate in any particular contest. The site currently shows the Republicans ahead in 203 House races, with the Democrats leading in 199. There are 33 toss-up House races, of which 32 are in districts with a Democratic incumbent, one with a Republican. In order to win control of the House, the Republicans have to win 15 toss-up races. Given the fact that RealClearPolitics currently shows the Republicans maintaining a 6 point lead nationwide in generic Congressional balloting, it is safe to say that the GOP has an outstanding chance of capturing at least the necessary 15 seats, thereby gaining control of the House for the first time since 2007.

The Intrade market confirms this today by rating the GOP with a 73% chance of capturing the House. It is beyond the scope of this article to explain how the Intrade political prediction market works, but suffice it to say that the Intrade market has often been a more reliable predictor of elections than the various polls. The people who buy future prediction contracts on this market are usually very sophisticated investors who often seem to have more “inside knowledge” than even the most prominent national pundits.

A Republican takeover of the House of Representatives will have special significance for New Jersey. Specifically, it will almost certainly mean that Representatives Rodney Frelinghuysen (R- NJ 11th) and Scott Garrett (R- NJ 5th) will become major national players.

Frelinghuysen is currently serving as the ranking Republican member on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. Garrett serves as the ranking Republican member on the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises. These are two of the most significant subcommittees in the House of Representatives. Both these Representatives will doubtless become chairs of these subcommittees in the event of a Republican takeover of the House. Once again, Frelinghuysen will become a House “Cardinal” – a chair of an Appropriations Subcommittee.

Even more significantly, if the Republicans retain control of the House in the 2012 elections, both Frelinghuysen and Garrett have a realistic chance of becoming chairs of the Appropriations Committee and Financial Services Committee, respectively. This would give the New Jersey Congressional delegation power over critical national issues which it has not enjoyed for some time.

I have maintained close personal and working relationships with both Rodney Frelinghuysen and Scott Garrett for nearly two decades, as far back as when both were serving in the New Jersey Assembly. It gives me a special sense of pride to see both these gentlemen become major players on the national stage.

Rodney Frelinghuysen served as chair of the Assembly Appropriations Committee after the Republicans captured veto-proof majorities in both the state Assembly and Senate in the 1991 elections. His superb knowledge of state government and finances, together with his close cooperation with the then Assembly Speaker Chuck Haytaian and Senate Budget Committee Chair Robert Littell resulted in the passage of a budget for FY1993 that reduced the proposed spending plan of then Governor Jim Florio by over $1.1 billion and the sales tax by one percent. As Senior Policy Advisor to Speaker Haytaian, I worked closely with Rodney in crafting the FY 1994 education budget. I found that Rodney’s intellect and warm, collegial personality made him a pleasure to work with.

After being elected to the House of Representatives, Rodney found a natural home on the House Appropriations Committee. During my service as Regional Administrator of Region 2 EPA in the second term of President George W. Bush, I had the good fortune to work closely with Rodney once again. He monitored closely the process of Superfund remediations within his district and displayed an admirable concern for environmental issues of national concern as well. It gave me much pleasure to witness the enormous respect given to Rodney by members on both sides of the political aisle.

As for Scott Garrett, it is fair to say that he is perhaps the most underrated person in New Jersey politics over the last three decades. As a Congressman, he has been a true profile in courage in opposing the wasteful bailouts that were enacted after the fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008. His focused, sharp criticism of the Dodd- Frank financial "reform" legislation gave him national publicity and won him plaudits from leading players in the political, academic, and financial worlds.

Since his first election to the House in 2002, every two years one hears talk of a Democratic candidate or an insurgent Republican defeating Scott for reelection. That talk has now ended for good. Scott keeps winning reelection by overwhelming margins. He is the most popular “movement” conservative in New Jersey, and any effort to deprive him of reelection by placing him in a district with another House member will fail totally.

Congressman Garrett has also become a prodigious fundraiser as well. Having raised more than $1.2 million for this cycle, he has vaulted to the front of the pack, becoming the strongest fundraiser in New Jersey’s Republican Congressional delegation. Since he will only have to spend a fraction of that amount on this year’s race, he will be in an unbeatable position in the 2012 election as well.

On Election Night 2010, you will here national news commentators talk about the roles that the new Republican Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor will play in the next House of Representatives. In forging their agenda, Boehner and Cantor will doubtless find themselves working closely with Rodney Frelinghuysen and Scott Garrett. That will be a major plus for New Jersey's influence on the national scene.

Alan J. Steinberg served as Regional Administrator of Region 2 EPA during the administration of former President George W. Bush. Region 2 EPA consists of the states of New York and New Jersey, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and seven federally recognized Indian nations.

Christie for Vice-President in 2012? It Could Very Well Happen

2010-08-24T10:32:00.001-04:00

By Alan Steinberg

Governor Chris Christie is now the national media rock star for political conservatives and Republicans in general. He is to the Morning Joe show on MSNBC what the Beatles were to the Ed Sullivan Show in the 1960s. His appearances on the NBC Today Show and ABC This Week have received national acclaim. He now graces the cover of National Review. Peggy Noonan extols him in the Wall Street Journal. Time and Newsweek, I am sure, will have cover stories in the near future about “the Christie Phenomenon”.

The favorable media has sparked growing talk of a Christie for President candidacy in 2012. It is almost impossible, however, for a first term governor of any state to devote the time and effort necessary for a full-fledged successful candidacy for the Presidency. Ronald Reagan learned this in 1968 when his convention week candidacy for the Republican nomination failed to stop Richard Nixon, the GOP nominee at that year’s Miami Beach Republican National Convention.

Furthermore, Christie has made it very clear that he has no intention whatsoever of seeking the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. He forthrightly says that he is not ready for such an effort. As for the vice-presidential nomination, Christie has disclaimed any interest whatsoever by humorously responding, “Can you imagine me being number two to anybody?”

Whether you love or hate Chris Christie, you have to accept the fact that he says what he means and means what he says. Accordingly, there can be no doubt regarding his absence of national ticket aspirations, at least for the present.

I have no doubt, however, that if Chris Christie’s New Jersey poll approval ratings are above fifty percent when the Republicans gather for their national convention in Tampa, Florida on August 27, 2012, he will be at or near the top of the Republican presidential candidate's“short short list” for the vice presidential nomination. By “short short list”, I mean the Republican presidential nominee’s top three preferences.

If indeed Christie is on the 2012 Republican presidential nominee’s vice presidential “short short list”, this will be the first time a New Jersey governor achieved this status since former Governor Richard J. Hughes was a finalist in Hubert Humphrey’s vice presidential nominee designation in 1968, the other two contenders being Edmund S. Muskie, the eventual vice presidential nominee, and former Senator Fred Harris of Oklahoma.

During their administrations, both former Governors Tom Kean and Christie Whitman were often the subject of media speculation as possible vice presidential candidates. Both would have been excellent nominees, and if necessary could have served competently as President.

Neither Kean nor Whitman, however, ever made the “short short list” of a presidential nominee, since they were both pro-choice on the abortion issue. For better or worse, an anti-abortion position has been a litmus test for a Republican presidential or vice presidential nominee since 1980. Chris Christie has been consistently pro-life, and therefore, there is absolutely no litmus test bar to his selection as a Republican vice presidential nominee.

Chris Christie will never seek the Republican vice presidential nomination in 2012. The nomination, however, may well seek him. There are two compelling reasons for this, aside from the possibility of the Republican presidential ticket capturing the 14 electoral votes of New Jersey, a state which no Republican Presidential candidate has won since George H.W. Bush did so in 1988.

First, Christie has a remarkable appeal to Reagan Democrats, as demonstrated by his success in carrying Democratic Middlesex and Gloucester Counties in the 2009 gubernatorial election. In the 2012 election, recapturing the Reagan Democrats will be the key to Republican hopes of capturing Pennsylvania’s 21 electoral votes for the first time since 1988. Christie’s Reagan Democrat appeal will be a huge asset in this regard.

The second reason is a factor I have only become aware of recently: Christie, born in 1962, also has a unique appeal to what I call the “post-baby boomer generation” born after 1960. While I have not seen this evidenced by any poll, I have developed this perception based on my discussions with people I meet inside and outside New Jersey day to day.

Christie’s victory over baby boomer generation Jon Corzine truly marked a generational shift in New Jersey politics, just as the victory of Barack Obama (born in 1961) in the 2008 Presidential election marked the triumph of the post-baby boomers at the national level. The post-baby boomer generation is, by and large, focused on the values of hard work, family, and faith.

Indeed, Barack Obama was at one time the symbol of hope to the post-baby boomers. The President, however, has lost this position of symbolic leadership, perhaps irretrievably, due to a worsening economy and an incoherent foreign policy. Chris Christie’s national media appearances have made him an avatar of the hopes and aspirations of the post-baby boomer generation.

In addition to these two political assets, Christie has other attributes that would be much valued by the individual potential Republican presidential nominees.

For Mitt Romney and Mitch Daniels, Christie’s vice presidential nomination in itself would be most reassuring to conservatives uneasy about Romney’s health care legislation in Massachusetts and the comment of Daniels that the next president "would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues." Christie’s record on both social and economic issues in New Jersey is remarkably conservative, especially for a “blue”, liberal Democratic state.

Incidentally, Christie and Romney share a mutual close friend in New Jersey state Senator Joe Kyrillos. With regard to Mitch Daniels, as noted by National Review commentator Rich Lowry, these two governors of Indiana and New Jersey, respectively are remarkably in tune in terms of message and small government philosophy.

For southerners Mike Huckabee and Haley Barbour, Christie would provide a much needed geographic balance. Barbour is already well acquainted with Christie’s political assets from his experience as chair of the Republican Governors Association, which strongly supported Christie in the 2009 campaign.

For low key Tim Pawlenty, Christie’s powerful yet entertaining personality would serve as a nice personal balance. The New Jersey governor would provide much needed gravitas to a ticket headed by Sarah Palin. John Thune would greatly benefit from Christie’s success with the national media.

Accordingly, as said above, I have no doubt that if Christie has over 50 percent approval ratings in New Jersey polls at the time of the 2012 Republican National Convention, he will be most seriously considered for the vice presidential nomination. The question is whether Christie would accept it. I am not an intimate of his, and I cannot answer that question.

Yet there is no question that all the current talk about Christie being nominated for President or Vice President is certainly good for New Jersey.

The past decade has been one where the national spotlight has often shone on New Jersey in a most unfavorable way. Americans have viewed New Jersey as the state of the McGreevey scandal and exodus as governor in 2004 and the shame of Corruption Thursday in July, 2009. We have been embarrassingly stereotyped by television shows such as The Sopranos and Jersey Shore.

Thus, it is indeed a welcome change for New Jersey to be in the national spotlight due to the success and communication skills of a governor who is without scandal or any ethical taint.

Hillary versus Barack in 2012?

2010-08-24T10:29:00.000-04:00

By Alan Steinberg

Stop laughing. I’m not predicting this, but it is within the realm of possibility.

President Barack Obama is a man whose political fortunes have imploded. The national political rock star of 2008 has become the Democratic political albatross of 2010. Democratic candidates in the 2010 gubernatorial, U.S. Senate, and House of Representatives elections are running away from him, not with him.

Obama’s approval rating reaches new lows every day, due to worsening economic conditions and a foreign policy of appeasement of hostile nations and downgrading of alliances with loyal friends. On the two leading 2010 “values” controversies, to wit, the Arizona immigration law and the Cordoba Ground Zero mosque initiative, the President is definitely on the losing side of public opinion.

That is not the worst news for Barack Obama. In August, 2011, his political fortunes and prospects may be far worse.

There are two looming political nightmares for the President. First, a growing number of mainstream economists are predicting a severe recession in 2011. Second, unless the tax reductions enacted during the administration of former President George W. Bush are extended beyond December 31, 2010, the American public will be subjected to the largest income tax hike in American history in 2011.

If either one of these two situations occur, Obama will be in far worse political shape than he is in today. If in 2011 the American public experiences both a severe recession and a huge income tax hike, there is no way that the President will be reelected, regardless of who wins the Republican presidential nomination. Any of the prospective GOP presidential nominees – Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, or John Thune – would easily defeat Barack Obama under such a scenario.

The key political question would then be whether Hillary Clinton would challenge Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. If Obama looks like a sure reelection loser, I suspect that many Democrats would actually favor Hillary mounting such a challenge. She is the one Democrat who could possibly defeat any of the above mentioned GOP candidates if Obama’s reelection prospects become moribund.

The question then would be how could Hillary Clinton step down from her present position as Secretary of State and then seek the Democratic Presidential nomination against the incumbent President who appointed her. A Clinton resignation from the position of Secretary of State would have to be based upon a fundamental disagreement with President Obama on a major foreign policy issue.

Such an issue might arise if Israel launches air strikes against Iran’s developing nuclear weapon facilities.

Obama is less supportive of Israel than any other President since the Declaration of Independence of the Jewish State in 1948. If Israel launches such an attack, Obama will certainly condemn Israel’s actions and maybe even seek sanctions against the Jewish State.

By contrast, both Bill and Hillary Clinton have been far more supportive of Israel than Barack Obama. Although they both have had disagreements with Likud Party leaders, they remain on very friendly terms with the major players in Israel’s Labor Party. Obama is viewed negatively by an overwhelming majority of Israelis, right and left.

Furthermore, Hillary Clinton has been far more hawkish than Obama against the Iranian Ahmadinejad government. If Obama were to repudiate an Israeli preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, there is a significant chance that this would lead to a Hillary Clinton resignation as Secretary of State.

If Hillary then defeated Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, she would have at least an even money chance of defeating any of the above mentioned GOP Presidential candidates in the general election. The failures of Barack Obama have not adversely affected the standing of Bill and Hillary Clinton with the American public.

As a long time New Jersey GOP stalwart, I have a shameful confession to make. I had a surprisingly good working relationship with the then Senator Hillary Clinton and her staff while I served as Region 2 EPA Regional Administrator during the second term of President George W. Bush. I certainly would never support her for President, but if I had to have a Democratic President, I would far rather have her than a Barack Obama.

Hillary’s concern for the environment was genuine, and unlike Obama, she was willing to work closely with Republican members of the House of Representatives and the Senate to achieve bipartisan goals. This was confirmed for me in a conversation I had with my closest friend in the New York State Republican Congressional delegation, the then Congressman Jim Walsh, who represented the Syracuse area.

Jim Walsh and I had similar experiences of bipartisan cooperation with Hillary Clinton. This was in sharp contrast to our working experiences with the disgraced former Governor Eliot Spitzer, a political Sonny Liston, who was a vulgar, offensive and profane cowardly partisan bully, without ethical scruples. Both of us had experienced ugly confrontations with the then New York governor – from which neither Jim nor I backed down. Unlike Hillary, who was gracious and dignified, Eliot Spitzer gave new meaning to the term “political thug”.

Another distinguishing feature of the then Senator Hillary Clinton was her Senate staff. On the Democratic side of the aisle, she had the most competent staff of any Senator, with the exception of the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s Labor Committee staff. Her record of Senate accomplishment stood in sharp contrast to that of the Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who established a record of substantial nonachievement.

So in late 2007, I was certain that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States in 2008. I had no doubt that she would have a campaign staff as competent as her Senatorial staff. I felt that with the supreme political skills of both her husband Bill and herself, she would easily defeat Barack Obama.

I was therefore shocked by the incompetency of both her campaign and campaign staff. I was even further surprised when she accepted Obama’s appointment of her as Secretary of State.

Had Hillary Clinton remained in the U.S. Senate, I am convinced that she could have eventually achieved the stature of the late Senator Ted Kennedy or an Orrin Hatch, senators respected on both sides of the political aisle for their ability to achieve bipartisan cooperation in pursuit of the public good. Instead, she became the spokesperson for a failed foreign policy with which, I believe, she often disagrees.

If the opportunity to wrest the nomination from Barack Obama arises and the Clintons decide to take the political plunge, I am convinced that they would not make the same mistakes they made in the 2008 campaign. The Clintons never make the same mistakes twice.

All the above is a matter of sheer speculation, I admit. Perhaps Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid will find some way to extend the Bush tax cuts in a way to at least hold harmless middle class families. Perhaps the economy will not deteriorate further in 2011.

If my above described possible scenario develops, however, and if Hillary runs against Barack in 2012, remember you read about the possibility of it here first.

On Saturday night, Yankee Stadium again is a boxing capital

2010-06-05T23:03:00.000-04:00

Wednesday, 02 June 2010 08:29

BY ALAN J. STEINBERG

NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

COMMENTARY

On Saturday night, June 5, 2010, world super-welterweight champion Yuri Foreman will be defending his title against former world welterweight champion Miguel Cotto at Yankee Stadium. It will be the first bout at a Yankee Stadium since Muhammad Ali successfully defended his world heavyweight championship against Ken Norton at its former location across the street on September 28, 1976. Once again, Yankee Stadium will be a boxing world capital, restored to its former pugilistic glory.

Major boxing matches are always a time of nostalgia and memories of great fights past. As the fans at Yankee Stadium await the first round bell on Saturday night, I will be reminiscing about my great New York fight memories. Old family boxing stories passed down from my father to me may actually bring a tear to the eye.

My love of boxing and baseball, as well as my Jewish heritage and Hebrew name, is an inheritance from my grandfather, Archie Steinberg, born Aryeh Malovany in Rozan, Poland in 1898, who passed away eight months before my birth in 1949.

Archie came to America in 1912 and first resided with his Uncle Michuel Steinberg and Aunt Bessie (Bryna) Gurman Steinberg in Pittsburgh. He learned about the Pittsburgh Pirates' shortstop Honus Wagner and the great light heavyweight champion Harry Greb, the "Pittsburgh Windmill" at about the same time he began to understand conversational English.

He married his first cousin, Rose, the daughter of his Uncle Michuel and Aunt Bryna in 1920. My grandmother, however, would soon find that she was marrying baseball and boxing as well.

Archie opened his own kosher butcher shop on Murray Avenue in Squirrel Hill, the Jewish neighborhood of Pittsburgh. Every year in April, Archie would give Rose the keys to the car and tell her to drive him to the Oakland section of Pittsburgh. As they arrived near Forbes Field, home ballpark of the Pirates, Archie would get out of the car and tell Rose, "I'm going to the Pirate opener – go back and watch the store."

Let me tell you the ultimate of Archie's sports fanaticism – on the day my father, Melvin (Moishe) was born, October 7, 1925, Archie was at Forbes Field watching Hall of Fame Washington Senators pitcher Walter Johnson win against the Pirates in Game One of the World Series. When he arrived home and asked mother-in-law Bryna,"Where is Rose?" She responded, "You have another son!"

Boxing, however, was the equal of baseball in Archie's sports world. Billy Conn, the greatest light-heavyweight champion in history, also lived in Squirrel Hill. Archie knew Billy's trainer, a fellow Jew by the name of Harry Pitler, brother of Brooklyn Dodger coach Jake Pitler. For the sports public, Harry went by the name of Johnny Ray.

When Billy fought Joe Louis for the heavyweight championship of the world at the late, lamented Polo Grounds in Manhattan on the night of Wednesday, June 18, 1941, my late uncle Alter Steinberg went to Forbes Field to watch the Pirates play the New York Giants. That was not, however, the real reason he went to the game.

At 10:00 pm, the game stopped, and the Louis-Conn fight was broadcast over the public address system. The blow-by-blow announcer was Don Dunphy, broadcasting his first world heavyweight championship fight.

Don Dunphy was the greatest announcer in the history of boxing, and on that night, he was broadcasting what in my opinion was the greatest heavyweight championship fight in boxing history. After twelve rounds, Billy was outboxing the champion Brown Bomber and led on two of three scorecards, 7-4-1 and 7-5 while tied on the third, 6-6.

Then, Billy made a fatal mistake. He left his corner and tried to knock Louis out, and he was knocked out at 2:58 of the thirteenth round. After the fight, Harry Pitler said to his fallen fighter, "Billy, if you had a Jewish head instead of an Irish head, you would be the heavyweight champion of the world today!"

There was no question that a fight of this magnitude would be held in New York. During the 1930s right up through the early 1960s, virtually every major championship fight, with few exceptions, was held in the nation's largest city. Throughout this era, New York actually had three boxing capitals: the Polo Grounds in Harlem, Yankee Stadium in the Bronx, and Madison Square Garden at 50th Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan, later in 1968 to be moved to its present Penn Station Manhattan location.

In one respect, the Polo Grounds historically was the leading fight capital of the three venues, for it was the site of the two greatest heavyweight championship fights of all time, the aforesaid Louis-Conn fight and the 1923 Jack-Dempsey-Luis Angel Firpo classic. During this bout, the Argentine challenger, known as the "Wild Bull of the Pampas" was knocked out in the second round, but not before he had knocked the champion Dempsey out of the ring at the end of the first round after himself previously being floored seven times.

Yet the other two venues had their historic claims as well. Madison Square Garden hosted more major championship fights than the other two sites, including the epic first battle between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier "Fight of the Champions" on March 8, 1971. The Garden was also the location of virtually every major bout, championship or otherwise, on the televised Friday night and later Saturday night Fight of the Week series during the 1950s and early 1960s, sponsored by Gillette razors and broadcast by Jimmy Powers and Don Dunphy. Who can ever forget those great Gillette razor commercials: "Look Sharp – Be Sharp – Feel Sharp!"

As for Yankee Stadium, its place is indelibly etched in American history and not just boxing history, for it was the site of the June 22, 1938 heavyweight championship rematch between Joe Louis and former champion German Max Schmeling. Adolph Hitler had used Schmeling's June 19, 1936 12th round knockout of Louis at Yankee Stadium as proof of Aryan superiority. In the rematch, Louis scored a victory for America by knocking out Schmeling in the first round.

There were many other great championship boxing events in Yankee Stadium, but for me, the most memorable was the middleweight championship bout between defending champion Sugar Ray Robinson and welterweight champion Carmen Basilio on September 23, 1957. The bout took place during a sad period for New York -- the last days in the city for the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York Giants prior to their departure for Los Angeles and San Francisco, respectively. It was an unforgettable contest, however, won by Basilio on a close split decision.

There are few events in the sports world as exciting as a championship bout in New York. The unique energy of the city and the intensity of New York fight fans provide an atmosphere unmatched in any other venue. Due to tax reasons, however, most major bouts over the past few decades have been fought in Las Vegas. That is a shame. Las Vegas is a plastic town with boulevards of broken dreams. It can hardly match the unique excitement provided to a championship bout by New York, the greatest city in the world.

Yankee Stadium has a history unmatched by any other sports stadium in the universe. It was the site of many a classic World Series, as well as the most important sports event of my life, the 1958 NFL Championship "sudden death" game between the Baltimore Colts and the New York Giants whose exciting outcome led to the NFL becoming the nation's number one sport. The Foreman-Cotto fight will hopefully be a new worthy chapter in the history of The House That Ruth Built, Reggie and George Remodeled, and Bloomberg Built Anew Across the Street.

As for the fight itself, I definitely have a strong bias. I am thrilled that a fellow Orthodox Jew, Yuri Foreman, born in the former Soviet Union and now living in Brooklyn is a world championship boxer. Not only that -- Yuri is a rabbinical student! I have been influenced by a lot of great rabbis throughout my life, but none of them could box. Understandably, I will definitely be rooting for Yuri.

At the same time, during my service as Region 2 EPA Regional Administrator, I developed a very warm feeling towards the people of Puerto Rico, and I truly adore the beauty of the island commonwealth. Not only that, growing up in Pittsburgh, Roberto Clemente was my ultimate sports hero. So if Miguel Cotto, one of many great Puerto Rican fighters, including Sixto Escobar, Jose Torres, Carlos Ortiz, and Wilfredo Gomez, prevails on Saturday night, I will be happy for my many Puerto Rican friends as well.

In the words of the late, beloved New York ring announcer Harry Balogh, whose malapropisms exceeded those of Yogi Berra: "May the better participant emerge triumphant!"

Alan J. Steinberg served as Regional Administrator of Region 2 EPA during the administration of former President George W. Bush. Region 2 EPA consists of the states of New York and New Jersey, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and seven federally recognized Indian nations. He currently serves as Public Servant in Residence at Monmouth University.

Christie's Property Tax Cap Amendment: Leading Issue in 2011 Elections?

2010-05-31T22:40:00.000-04:00

By Alan Steinberg | May 31st, 2010 - 7:17pm

Given the boldness of Governor Chris Christie’s budget proposals, the Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU) poll results reported last week actually constituted very good news for him. He continues to have a positive approval rating of 44-42 percent, and he enjoys a substantial 12 point approval margin in non-union households. Moreover, the Governor’s chief antagonist special interest group, the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) has a highly negative rating of 33-44 percent.

The FDU poll results on some of his property tax related initiatives provided even better news for the Governor. His proposals for a 2.5 percent cap on public employee salary increases, a one year freeze on teacher pay increases, and a move of the school elections from April to November all received approval by wide margins. This augurs very well for voter approval of the Governor’s proposed constitutional amendment of a “hard cap” prohibiting any property tax increase greater than 2.5 percent without voter approval.

During the first four months of his administration, the Governor has established his three major priorities: 1) the enactment of a Fiscal Year 2011 budget without an income tax increase; 2) the appointment to the New Jersey Supreme Court of strict constructionist justices who will refrain from legislating from the bench; and 3) the enactment of the aforesaid constitutional amendment.

Christie is certain to prevail on his Fiscal Year 2011 proposed budget objectives. He will also achieve his goal regarding the New Jersey Supreme Court, but it will take a while, given State Senate President Steve Sweeney’s present refusal to hold hearings on Justice-nominee Anne Patterson.

The Governor will prevail on his proposed 2.5 per cent “hard cap” constitutional amendment as well. There is no doubt whatsoever that the amendment will win voter approval in a November election by a landslide margin – once the Legislature approves the amendment for placement on a general election ballot. The timing of such legislative approval, however, is highly uncertain.

The New Jersey Constitution requires that the Governor’s proposed amendment be agreed to by three-fifths of all the members of each of the respective houses, i.e. 24 Senators and 48 Assembly members, in order to be placed on the November, 2010 ballot for voter approval. The legislative vote must take place after a public hearing, and the amendment must be so approved and published by the Legislature at least three months prior to Election Day in at least one newspaper in every county.

If the proposed amendment is agreed to by less than three-fifths but nevertheless by a majority of all the members of each of the respective houses in 2010, it will be referred to the Legislature for a vote in 2011. If in 2011 the amendment is again agreed to by a majority of the members of the Assembly and Senate, respectively, then it will be placed for voter approval on the November, 2011 ballot.

Given the sizable Democrat majorities in both the Assembly and Senate, it appears unlikely for the amendment to be approved by the required three-fifths majorities in each house by the deadline date for posting it on the November, 2010 ballot. A more likely prospect would be approval of the amendment by a simple majority in each house for placement on the November, 2011 ballot. Yet even the latter prospect is uncertain, since the amendment poses a serious political dilemma for Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver and Senate President Sweeney.

Both the Senate President and the Assembly Speaker know that the electorate is well disposed to the Governor’s proposed 2.5 percent “hard cap”. In fact, they also realize that the public is clamoring for decisive action on property taxes, and Chris Christie is the first Governor over the past four decades to make such a bold proposal.

Yet Sweeney and Oliver appear to have genuine concerns regarding the reaction of the public employee unions, namely the NJEA and the Communications Workers of America (CWA), who vehemently oppose the proposed constitutional amendment.

Historically, the public employee unions have loyally supported Democratic candidates for governor and the legislature, and they have provided both money and volunteers. If the public employee unions “sit out” the 2011 legislative elections, this could negatively impact the Democrats in the races for both the Assembly and Senate in the newly reapportioned legislature.

If, however, the Democratic legislative leadership bows to the wishes of its public employee union core constituency and refuses to provide the votes necessary for placement of the Governor’s proposed amendment on the 2011 ballot, they will be providing Christie with the most inviting prospect of making the 2011 legislative elections a referendum on his property tax proposal.

In such an event, the Governor would be able to campaign throughout the state in 2011, a la Harry Truman in 1948, against the “do nothing Democratic state legislature” who failed to enact his proposed property tax cap. Christie is a superb campaigner, and Democratic legislative candidates would find themselves on the wrong end of a powerful populist issue.

So for Oliver and Sweeney, it is “pick your poison” time. They can succumb to the pressures of the public employee unions, refuse to provide the votes necessary for the placement of the amendment on the November 2011 ballot, and give Christie and the Republicans a potent property tax issue which could result in the election of Republican majorities in both houses in 2011. The alternative is to agree to the Governor’s amendment on the theory that the public employee unions have no other place to go – they certainly are not going to support either Christie or most GOP legislative candidates.

In the end, I think that Sweeney and Oliver will provide the votes necessary to place the Governor’s proposed 2.5 percent “hard cap” property tax amendment on the 2011 ballot. I would not bet on this, however – Trenton remains the land of the unpredictable.

Stay tuned.

Alan J. Steinberg served as Regional Administrator of Region 2 EPA during the administration of former President George W. Bush. Region 2 EPA consists of the states of New York and New Jersey, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and seven federally recognized Indian nations. He currently serves as Public Servant in Residence at Monmouth University

Opposition to value added tax, not ObamaCare, is best N.J. GOP congressional election issue

2010-05-26T19:13:00.000-04:00

BY ALAN J. STEINBERG

COMMENTARY

The conventional wisdom of national Republican strategists is that ObamaCare, the health care reform package passed by the Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama, is the key issue for Republican victory in the races for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives this November. I disagree.

I strongly oppose ObamaCare due to the deleterious effect I believe it will have on both the quality of healthcare and the economic well-being of American families. Support for ObamaCare may actually increase between now and Election Day 2010, however, as Americans focus on its short term benefits rather than its long term consequences. Opposition to new or increased taxes, rather than ObamaCare, constitutes the key to Republican electoral triumph this year.

As we approach November, there will be much discussion of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress enacting a national Value Added Tax (VAT) in order to close runaway budget deficits. The passage of VAT could result in double digit percentage increases in the cost of consumer goods, including food and clothing. If Republicans are able to convey to upper and lower middle class voters the negative impact of VAT on the family pocketbook, this may well result in the election of Republican majorities in both the House and Senate.

Polls taken earlier this year reveal the uncertainty of the potential of ObamaCare as a GOP issue. The Monmouth University/Gannett Poll published in April showed New Jerseyans about evenly split over ObamaCare, with opponents showing more intensity on the issue. These findings are almost identical to the results at the national level in the Washington Post poll on ObamaCare published last March. Support for ObamaCare breaks down along party lines, with Democrats backing it and Republicans overwhelmingly opposed.

Independents exhibit mixed sentiments on ObamaCare. In order to persuade Independents that ObamaCare is indeed beneficial in both health care and economic terms, Democratic leaders in the House and Senate are touting the near term benefits of the legislation.

Such an appeal was made by Senator Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey) this week in a column written by him for the website Politico.com. Menendez hailed ObamaCare for providing "many long-overdue benefits, including preventing insurers from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions, closing the so-called doughnut hole for seniors, allowing young adults to stay on their parents' health insurance until age 26 and increasing coverage to more than 30 million Americans".

This rhetoric could prove to be highly effective for Democratic incumbents defending their seats in districts that traditionally vote for Democrats in federal elections, such as New Jersey's 6th District and 12th District, represented in the House by Frank Pallone and Rush Holt, respectively. As for the 3rd District, which leans more Republican, incumbent Democratic Representative John Adler has effectively eliminated ObamaCare as a GOP issue by voting against it twice.

Thus, I doubt that ObamaCare poses any significant threat to the reelection of John Adler, Frank Pallone, and Rush Holt. If they have to answer to the electorate as to how they might vote on an Obama VAT proposal, however, they could find themselves in an unhappy political quandary. The likelihood that VAT may become a central issue in the 2010 House and Senate races nationwide increases every day, due to the skyrocketing projected federal deficits for the next few years.

In past Presidential and Congressional elections, federal budget deficits have never become an effective issue for either party. Under Obama, the deficit is now a top tier electoral issue, since the historically unprecedented projected deficits for his administration and the resulting increase in the national debt may well result in the downgrading of the credit rating of the United States of America.

If the credit rating of the United States is downgraded, the federal government will be forced to pay higher interest rates on bonds, resulting in increases of all other interest rates paid to and by investors, lending institutions, and corporations. This will have the effect of further increasing the federal budget deficits and retarding economic growth.

The economic chaos in Greece has resulted in increased attention to America's fiscal condition as well. Normally, incumbent presidents, senators, and representatives are able to defer addressing deficit and national debt issues until after the elections. President Obama will not have that luxury, however, given the increasing discussion of downgrading the U.S. credit rating, which has always been rated triple-A by Moody's.

There are two options Obama has to reduce the deficit. The first is to implement draconian cuts in spending, something that Obama will never do, given his liberal ideology and the mammoth spending increases mandated by ObamaCare. That leaves the President only one option: a tax increase. The question for Obama is two-fold:

1) What type of tax increase can be passed by Congress; and 2) what tax increase or new tax would result in the least damaging impact to the President's political fortunes?

Politically, it is impossible to enact a personal income or corporate tax increase large enough to reduce the deficit to an extent sufficient to avoid a federal credit downgrade. So Obama has turned to VAT as the least politically damaging option.

VAT is defined in common parlance as a tax on the estimated market value added to a product or material at each stage of its manufacture or distribution, ultimately passed on to the consumer. To the consumer, it is a national sales tax. Unfortunately, the tax is regressive, having a disproportionate impact on middle and low income families. The enactment of VAT would also be a violation of Obama's campaign promise not to raise any tax on families earning less than $250,000 per year.

Still, Obama appears inclined towards enacting VAT well before he stands for reelection in 2012, despite denials by his press secretary Robert Gibbs. The VAT idea was floated by White House economic advisor and former Federal Reserve Board chair Paul Volcker in April and by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last October.

Federal tax increases have always created problems for New Jersey U.S. Senators and Representatives facing reelection. Despite his liberal ideology and political partisanship, Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg was compelled to vote against the Clinton income tax hikes in 1993, knowing that a vote in favor would have resulted in his losing his seat in 1994 to Republican challenger Assembly Speaker Garabed "Chuck" Haytaian.

It should be core Republican strategy in their three major challenger races in the state, namely, the 3rd, 6th, and 12th Districts, to demand that each Democratic incumbent takes a pledge of no new tax (specifically, the VAT) or increase in any existing tax. This will place the Democratic incumbent in the position between the Scylla of signing such a pledge, thus implicitly repudiating President Obama and the Democratic liberal base, and the Charybdis of opening the door to a VAT.

New or increased state taxes have been the major cause for defeat of New Jersey incumbents throughout the past four decades. The prospect of a new federal VAT poses the same danger to John Adler, Frank Pallone, and Rush Holt — and an opportunity to their Republican challengers. The GOP prospects of scoring upsets over any of these three incumbent Congressmen may well depend on how effectively the challengers capitalize on their anti-VAT opportunity.

Alan J. Steinberg served as Regional Administrator of Region 2 EPA during the administration of former President George W. Bush. Region 2 EPA consists of the states of New York and New Jersey, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and seven federally recognized Indian nations. He currently serves as Public Servant in Residence at Monmouth University.

A Meadowlands Super Bowl could be an NFL — and New Jersey — debacle

2010-05-26T19:10:00.000-04:00

Monday, 24 May 2010 12:16

BY ALAN J. STEINBERG

COMMENTARY

On Tuesday, May 25, the National Football League owners will likely select the Meadowlands as the site of the 2014 Super Bowl. Unfortunately, if adverse weather conditions exist during the weekend of the game, this selection may well result in a debacle for the NFL — and New Jersey as well.

The last NFL championship game played in the New York metropolitan area was the Green Bay Packers-New York Giants contest on December 30, 1962. Until the famous Dallas Cowboys-Green Bay Packers NFL Championship "Ice Bowl" game in Green Bay of December 31, 1967, the 1962 title contest had the worst weather conditions to date of any professional football championship game, with a temperature of 13 degrees and a wind gusts up to 40 miles per hour, creating a wind chill of minus 11 degrees.

These weather conditions were even worse than those of the famous 1948 NFL Championship game between the then Chicago Cardinals and the Philadelphia Eagles in Philadelphia's Shibe Park, known as the "Snow Bowl". My late friend and legendary sports talk show host Art Rust, Jr. described the 1962 NFL Championship game weather conditions as "barbaric".

Packers' head coach Vince Lombardi, in my opinion the greatest coach in NFL history, said after the 1962 title game, "I think it was about as fine a football game as I've ever seen. I think we saw football as it should be played."

I loved Vince, but I'm not surprised that he said that. The weather conditions nullified any chances the Giants had of defeating the Packers on that miserable December day in Yankee Stadium. The heart of the Giant offense was their passing game, and the frozen tundra of Yankee Stadium that Sunday made it virtually impossible for All-Pro Giant receivers Del Shofner and Frank Gifford to make their cuts and be open for long passes thrown by quarterback Y.A. Tittle, the NFL 1962 Most Valuable Player.

The year before, in the 1961 NFL Championship game played in Green Bay's Lambeau Field, the Packers had slaughtered the Giants 37-0. In 1962, however, the Giant fans were optimistic about the chances of the Maramen to avenge the previous year's humiliation, due to the incredible comeback season of Frank Gifford. His career had apparently been ended in 1960 by the famous blindside hit he took at Yankee Stadium from Hall of Fame Philadelphia Eagles' linebacker Chuck Bednarik. He did not play at all in 1961, but in 1962, switching his position from running back to wide receiver (then known as flanker), Gifford had an astounding All-Pro season.

In 1962, the Giants' passing game was vastly superior to that of the Packers. Green Bay quarterback Bart Starr had not yet achieved the proficiency he would attain in the years 1965 through 1967, and Shofner and Gifford constituted the best pair of wide receivers in the NFL. To be sure, the Packers' running attack of Paul Hornung and Jim Taylor certainly was of a much higher calibre than the Giant running game featuring Alex Webster, Phil King, and Joe Morrison. Nevertheless, in minimally decent weather conditions, Giant fans had reason to hope that their passing attack would enable them to win their first NFL Championship since 1956.

On that Sunday in Yankee Stadium, however, long passes were impossible. The longest pass completion for either team was a 25 yard throw from Tittle to tight end Joe Walton. Both Tittle and Starr had an abysmal average of less than five yards per pass. The Giants were unable to make a single offensive score. Their only score was on a Max McGee punt blocked by Giant Erich Barnes and recovered for a touchdown by special teams player Jim Collier. With the passing game of both teams rendered ineffective by the horrendous weather conditions, the Packers were able to win a 16-7 victory and a second straight NFL title on a combination of effective running by Hornung and Taylor and critical Giant turnovers.

When the lodge brothers of the NFL agreed to a merger with the upstart American Football League in 1966, it was stipulated that the new NFL-AFL championship game, to be soon renamed the Super Bowl, be played on a neutral site with optimum weather conditions. The 1962 Packers-Giants championship contest was a key factor in that decision. I don't expect current NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to remember this history since he was only seven years old at the time of the NFL-AFL merger.

Now, however, Goodell is the prime supporter of a Meadowlands Super Bowl. Every one of the 44 Super Bowls to date has either been played in a city without winter weather conditions or in a domed stadium. By locating the game in an outdoor stadium with a high possibility of adverse winter weather conditions, the current lodge brothers of the NFL will be eliminating the rationale for playing the game at a neutral site. If the owners are willing to take the risk of weather conditions that prevailed at the 1962 NFL title game, there is no reason for not playing the game at the home field of the Super Bowl finalist with the better regular season record.

It is clear that New Jersey will definitely get far less economic benefit from the game than New York. While the teams will stay in New Jersey hotels and practice here as well, virtually all the official NFL events and parties will be held in Manhattan. There is no risk whatsoever of these indoor events being cancelled due to bad weather. Almost certainly, the overwhelming majority of fans from the home cities of the participating teams will be staying in Manhattan hotels.

There is no major pre-Super Bowl official event scheduled for New Jersey until the outdoor Saturday night concert, probably to be situated in Jersey City's Liberty State Park. Yet severe weather conditions may force the cancellation of this event. Also subject to cancellation due to adverse weather would be the extravaganza halftime show, which could result in the loss of millions of dollars to its sponsors. Remember: horrific weather conditions resulted in the cancellation of the halftime shows at the 1967 "Ice Bowl" in Green Bay and at the AFC Championship game in Cincinnati in January, 1982 between the home town Bengals and the San Diego Chargers, known as the "Freezer Bowl".

If adverse weather conditions in the Meadowlands cause the passing game of both teams to be rendered ineffective as well as the cancellation of the Saturday night concert and halftime show, New Jersey will be the object of jokes for weeks from late night talk show hosts like David Letterman and Jay Leno. Nobody will poke fun at Manhattan. So Manhattan stands to get the lion's share of the economic benefit from a Meadowlands Super Bowl, without any risk to its image as Fun City.

All I can say to the advocates of a Meadowlands Super Bowl is this: Be careful what you wish for — you may get it. Perhaps one of the few beneficial results of global warming will be that a 2014 Meadowlands Super Bowl will not be plagued by the weather conditions that prevailed at the NFL Championship game at Yankee Stadium on December 30, 1962.

Alan J. Steinberg served as Regional Administrator of Region 2 EPA during the administration of former President George W. Bush. Region 2 EPA consists of the states of New York and New Jersey, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and seven federally recognized Indian nations. He currently serves as Public Servant in Residence at Monmouth University.

Israeli ‘Settlements’: A New Jersey story

2010-05-11T16:18:00.000-04:00

BY ALAN STEINBERG

COMMENTARY

During the administration of President Barack Obama, relations between the United States of America and the State of Israel have regressed to their worst point since Jimmy Carter left office in 1981. Both Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attribute this to the continued existence of Israeli "settlements," defined as those Jewish communities situated in the West Bank beyond the "Green Line," the Israeli border with Jordan before its victory in the Six Day War of June, 1967.

Mainstream media news networks, with the exception of Fox News, support the Obama/Clinton argument by portraying the Jewish inhabitants of these settlements as ultranationalist armed fanatics living in Quonset huts or tents. There is no mention made of the fact that Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967 in response to Jordan embarking on a war intended to destroy the Jewish State.

Jordan launched its attack against Israel on June 6, 1967, despite pleas from the Israeli government to stay out of the war which had begun between Israel and Egypt the day before. As the Jordanian offensive began, King Hussein, supposedly an Arab moderate, broadcast the following message to his Jordanian and Palestinian subjects over Amman radio: "Kill the Jews wherever you find them. Kill them with your arms, with your hands, with your nails and teeth."

I have a much different story to tell about the Israeli "settlements." Indeed, it is a New Jersey story, at it involves one of my dearest friends in life, Garabed "Chuck" Haytaian.

I had the joy and honor of working on Chuck's staff while he served as Speaker of the New Jersey Assembly in 1992 through 1993. Our friendship was bound together by something more than a common political philosophy and interests.

A large portion of my extended family residing in Poland was murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Chuck's uncle Garabed, for whom he was named, had been beheaded in front of his family by Turks during the Armenian genocide of 1915-1917. For Chuck and me, it was a shared familial heritage that resulted in our working together to craft the legislation that mandates the teaching of the Holocaust and other genocides in New Jersey's public schools.

When Chuck ran for the U.S. Senate in 1994, like virtually every candidate for statewide office in New Jersey, he travelled to Israel with his beloved late wife Joan on a fact-finding and informational mission. Given our relationship, it was natural for him to ask me to accompany him.

Chuck's mission to Israel in April, 1994 was coordinated by two distinguished leaders of the New Jersey Jewish Federations. When these two gentlemen asked me if I had any special requests for the mission, I stated that I had only one: Chuck and Joan should visit the West Bank "settlement" of Efrat.

Efrat is one of a group of settlements comprising the Etzion bloc (in Hebrew, Gush Etzion), located south of Jerusalem in the region of the Judean hills. In the modern era of Jewish return to the ancient homeland, the Etzion bloc was first settled by Jews in the 1920s. The leading Jewish community of the Etzion bloc was a kibbutz known as Kfar Etzion.

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted to partition the British mandate of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem to exist as an internationalized city. The Jews accepted the partition plan, while the Palestinian Arabs rejected it and started a civil war against the Jews, assisted by the Arab Legion of Transjordan. The civil war began on the day of the partition vote and lasted until May 14, 1948, the date of the Declaration of Independence of the Jewish State of Israel. On that day, the new Israeli state was attacked by all the neighboring Arab states, but the Jews eventually prevailed, culminating in the armistice agreements of early 1949.

During the 1947-1948 civil war, Kfar Etzion and the other Etzion bloc communities were destroyed by the Palestinian Arab guerrillas and the Arab Legion. The Jewish inhabitants of the Etzion bloc were either massacred or expelled.

The Etzion bloc survivors of the 1947-1948 war never gave up their dream of returning to their former lands. After the Israelis regained the area in the June, 1967 war, this dream of return became a reality. Efrat was founded in the Etzion bloc area in 1980 and today has a population of approximately 8,000. The entire Etzion bloc has a population of approximately 50,000.

So on a bright, sunny Friday morning in April, 1994, we members of the Haytaian mission left our hotel in Jerusalem for Efrat. The trip took only 20 minutes.

We entered Efrat through the main guard gate and immediate saw the central community school and plaza and residential areas of tree-lined streets and attractive stone houses with red tiled roofs — not exactly Quonset huts and tents. Throughout the municipality, one always has a magnificent view of the Judean Hills.

This was not what the Haytaians were expecting when I told them we were visiting an Israeli West Bank settlement. When we exited our van, Chuck took me aside and said to me, "I thought you told me we were visiting a settlement. This isn't a settlement. It's a suburb!"

Chuck had unwittingly uttered a profound truth regarding the so-called "national consensus settlements,"which are located very close to the Green Line. All these communities are located within suburban driving range of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, or Haifa.

They are called "national consensus settlements" because virtually all Israelis favor their retention, even if a territorial compromise agreement is reached in which Israel relinquishes control of part of the West Bank for the creation of a Palestinian Arab state. The great majority of the Israelis do not want to withdraw all the way to the 1967 Israeli borders, as they are an invitation to the destruction of the Jewish State.

We were most fortunate to have the Chief Rabbi of Efrat Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, as our guide. He is the ultimate rabbinical Renaissance man, a person whose qualities and achievements directly rebut the stereotype of an Israeli rabbi as portrayed by American mainstream liberal media.

Rabbi Riskin is one of the leading Modern Orthodox Jewish rabbis in the world. The term "Modern Orthodox" is used in contrast to "Haredi" fundamentalist Orthodoxy. Modern Orthodoxy emphasizes Zionism, secular learning as well as religious studies, and cooperation on matters of common community concern with all sectors of the Jewish community, not just the Orthodox.

Originally from Brooklyn, Rabbi Riskin graduated as valedictorian of his class at Yeshiva University in Manhattan with a major in Greek, Latin, and English literatures, and later he received a PhD in Near East Languages and Literature from New York University. In 1965, he marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on the famous Selma to Montgomery march.

After receiving his rabbinic ordination at Yeshiva University, Rabbi Riskin became the founding rabbi of Lincoln Square Synagogue in Manhattan's Upper West Side in 1963. Under his leadership, Lincoln Square Synagogue was a magnet for attracting previously non-observant Jews to Orthodox Judaism. It became one of the most successful Orthodox synagogues in Manhattan, with remarkable growth in terms of both membership and activities.

Rabbi Riskin was beloved at Lincoln Square, and he could have remained as rabbi of the synagogue for life. In 1983, however, he left the security of Lincoln Square Synagogue to move to Israel and become the Chief Rabbi of Efrat. He duplicated his Manhattan success in Israel by founding Ohr Torah Stone Institutions, a network of junior high schools, high schools, colleges, and graduate programs educating over 3,000 students.

He could not be more proud of his community of Efrat, in which numerous American Modern Orthodox Jewish families, including New Jerseyans, have established residence as new Israeli citizens. When he first arrived in Efrat, there was no running water. Today, Efrat is a thriving, attractive community.

During his years in Efrat, Rabbi Riskin made extensive efforts to establish friendly relations with the residents of the nearby Arab village of Wadi Nis. On the day of our visit, however, West Bank Jewish-Arab relations constituted a troubling subject for me.

Approximately five weeks earlier, Baruch Goldstein, a Jewish follower of the late Meir Kahane, whose views I found abhorrent, had committed a bloodthirsty act of Jewish terrorism. Goldstein was a physician, formerly from Brooklyn, who resided in the Kiryat Arba settlement near Hebron. On February 24, 1994, Goldstein entered into the Cave of Machpelah in Hebron, a site holy to both Jews and Muslims, and opened fire on unarmed Palestinian Muslim worshippers, killing 29 and wounding 125, before he was attacked and killed by the Arab survivors.

Goldstein's act of despicable terrorism had occurred on Purim, a joyous Jewish holiday, described in the Biblical book of Esther, commemorating the deliverance of the Jewish people throughout the ancient Persian Empire from a plot by Haman the Agagite to destroy them. To me, the Goldstein massacre was a shameful blot in Jewish history, and it gave unwarranted credibility to those who falsely portrayed West Bank Jewish settlers as extreme right wing violent zealots.

I told Rabbi Riskin that the Goldstein massacre had damaged the effectiveness of us Americans who had been advocates for the settlements in the Etzion Bloc, Efrat in particular. I asked him what had been his reaction to this tragedy, and I will never forget his following response:

"When I received the news of the Goldstein massacre, I contacted nine other Jewish male residents of Efrat. That way, we would have a minyan — the ten men quorum necessary to say Kaddish — the Jewish memorial prayer for the dead. Then, we went to Wadi Nis, gave our condolences to the Arab leaders of the village, and then said the Kaddish for the Arabs who had been killed by Goldstein. Then, I declared that in view of this tragedy, there would be no dancing in Efrat this Purim."

This is a story about Efrat that you never heard in the American mainstream media in 1994. Down through the ensuing years, I have repeated this story often in speeches I have given before Jewish religious and secular audiences.

Not every West Bank settlement is like Efrat, or like the other communities in the Etzion bloc for that matter. I relate this story, however, to illustrate how false the stereotypes are regarding Jewish settlers on the West Bank. To be sure, there is a small minority of right wing West Bank Jewish settler extremists in some isolated areas. By and large, however, the Jewish settlers in the West Bank national consensus settlements are idealistic pioneering types who do not seek either expulsion of their West Bank Arab neighbors or discrimination against them.

Most Israelis would support a two state solution that would create a Palestinian Arab state in West Bank and Gaza, as long as Israel retained the national consensus settlements. In the northern region of Israel near the Sea of Galilee and within the Green Line, the Palestinian Arabs now actually constitute a majority. Yet neither President Obama, nor Secretary of State Clinton, nor even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu ever says that these Palestinian Arabs constitute an "obstacle to peace." Why, then, do Obama and Clinton contend that the national Jewish consensus settlements impede the peace process?

In fact, when Obama and Clinton make this argument, they are conveniently forgetting recent history. In 2005, the Israeli government of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered the army to expel 8,000 fellow Israelis from Gush Katif, a block of 17 Israeli settlements within the southern Gaza Strip. This measure was an integral component of Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan, which was motivated by the hope of reduced tensions with Gaza Palestinian Arabs. Instead of moves towards peace, however, Hamas, which dominates Gaza, stepped up its campaign of rockets launched against the Israeli municipalities of Sderot and Ashkelon.

The real obstacle to peace is not the existence of the Israeli national consensus settlements. Instead, it is the denial by Hamas of Israel's right to exist at all and the refusal of the Palestinian Authority, which dominates Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank, to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. The withdrawal from Gush Katif proved the willingness of Israelis to enter into a territorial compromise, but this cannot take place if the very right of existence of Israel as a Jewish State is denied by its Palestinian Arab neighbors.

As for the Israeli citizens of the Etzion bloc, in 2009 they received a most unexpected visit from Jimmy Carter, who prior to Obama was regarded as the President least supportive of Israel. He met with members of the Gush Etzion Regional Council (which, incidentally, does not include Efrat, in spite of its status as an Etzion bloc settlement). Afterwards, to the astonishment of both the Israeli media and local leaders, Carter made the following statement about the Etzion bloc:

"This particular settlement is not one that I envision ever being abandoned, or changed over into a Palestinian territory. This is part of the close settlements to the 1967 line that I think will be here forever."

It took a visit to the Etzion bloc for Jimmy Carter to understand the Israeli case for this group of settlements. My fervent hope is that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will make a similar visit to Efrat and that they have the same good fortune as Chuck Haytaian and I had in 1994 to have a great man, Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, as their guide.

Alan J. Steinberg served as Regional Administrator of Region 2 EPA during the administration of former President George W. Bush. Region 2 EPA consists of the states of New York and New Jersey, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and seven federally recognized Indian nations. He currently serves as Public Servant in Residence at Monmouth University.

West Orange Mayoral Election May Have Statewide Significance

2010-05-10T09:46:00.000-04:00

By Alan Steinberg | May 9th, 2010 - 6:17pm

During my three decades of involvement in New Jersey politics, I have not devoted much energy and attention to municipal election contests. National, statewide, Congressional, and legislative campaigns have been my major areas of electoral focus.

This Tuesday’s mayoral contest in my home town of West Orange, however, is a significant exception to my rule. This race between mayoral candidates Republican John Schmidt and Democrat Councilman Rob Parisi is ostensibly and officially a nonpartisan election. The party affiliations of both candidates are hardly well-kept secrets, however. Parisi is closely allied with outgoing Mayor John McKeon, who also serves as a state Assemblyman from the 27th District. The conventional wisdom is that Parisi should comfortably win the election, due to a 4-1 Democratic registration edge. Political conventional wisdom, however, often is not very wise, and there are significant indications that John Schmidt may score an upset victory of statewide significance. West Orange is a town at the apogee of the statewide property tax revolt. The proposed school budget, which imposed a 7.3 percent property tax increase, was soundly defeated on April 20. I voted that day at approximately 5:00 pm, and the line at the polling place was of a length similar to that of a Presidential race. One of the key players in the school budget vote was Mark Meyerowitz, the chair of the West Orange Republican Organization. Meyerowitz is a dynamic and highly intelligent individual who has revived what was largely a dormant municipal GOP organization. During the weeks leading up to the school budget vote, Meyerowitz was organizing anti-school budget rallies and voter contact efforts. He is now working overtime for the Schmidt campaign. As reported by Max Pizarro on PolitickerNJ.com in his excellent series of articles on the mayoral race, Parisi has featured U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg, Congressman Bill Pascrell, and state Senator Dick Codey in mailers on his behalf. I have never seen any such luminaries involved in a West Orange municipal election in the twelve years I have lived here. To me, this is a sign that the Democrats in general and Parisi in particular are very fearful of the outcome of this race. The involvement of Dick Codey is most interesting. If Schmidt scores an upset, Codey and McKeon will be two of the major losers. Until legislative reapportionment is implemented in 2011, it is uncertain whether West Orange will remain in the 27th District or be shifted to a district that is more Republican. In any event, speculation is that Codey will not be running for reelection and that his close ally, John McKeon will seek the Senate seat in whatever district West Orange is located. A Parisi defeat will be a severe, perhaps fatal, setback for McKeon’s Senate aspirations. The Essex County Democratic forces allied with Steve Adubato and County Executive Joe DiVincenzo would doubtless prefer that the Democratic Senate nominee be a person from their camp. A Schmidt victory would give them the justification to deny McKeon the nod. Governor Chris Christie has in no way, directly or indirectly, been involved in the West Orange mayoral race, and a Parisi victory would not have any negative impact on him whatsoever. A Schmidt victory, however, would be a major New Jersey Republican triumph and a significant boost to the Governor’s proposed 2.5 percent property tax cap. There is another aspect of this campaign that is of particular significance for me. I am a member of the West Orange Orthodox Jewish community, which was a major force in the recent downfall of the proposed school district budget. While the Jewish vote is a major factor in New Jersey elections, there is a growing disparity in the voting patterns and political ideologies of Orthodox Jews from those of the other elements of the Jewish community. This is true on both the national and state levels. As an example, President Barack Obama is overwhelmingly unpopular among Orthodox Jews, due to his tilt against Israel, while he retains high popularity ratings among Conservative, Reform, and purely secular Jews. Orthodox Jews mostly send their children to yeshivas, rather than public schools, and their tuition bills can be highly expensive. Thus, they are not inclined to support local public school budgets with significant property tax increases. The current recession has had a very deleterious impact upon both Orthodox Jewish religious institutions and families, a significant number of whom are headed by parents in the financial industry who either lost their jobs or experienced a drastic decline in their incomes. In West Orange, skyrocketing property taxes have dealt a body blow to the financial condition of Orthodox Jewish families. John Schmidt has very effectively campaigned in the West Orange Orthodox Jewish community. Many Orthodox Jewish homes in my neighborhood and throughout the town have Schmidt signs on their front lawns. I have not seen a single Orthodox Jewish home with a Parisi sign. McKeon has had a good relationship with the West Orange Orthodox Jewish community in the past, but the focus on property taxes makes him unable to be a benefit to Parisi in any way among West Orange Orthodox Jewish voters. Win or lose, Schmidt will doubtless win over 80 percent of the West Orange Orthodox Jewish community vote. This will be a further sign of the movement of New Jersey’s Orthodox Jews into the Republican camp. I would not bet on this Tuesday’s West Orange mayoral race one way or the other. It may be a most interesting night.

Alan J. Steinberg served as Regional Administrator of Region 2 EPA during the administration of former President George W. Bush. Region 2 EPA consists of the states of New York and New Jersey, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and seven federally recognized Indian nations. He currently serves as Public Servant in Residence at Monmouth University.

The New Jersey Supreme Court: Christie Has Options

2010-04-26T18:37:00.003-04:00

Originally posted on politickernj.com - By Alan Steinberg | April 26th, 2010 - 2:24am

In an October, 2009 Star-Ledger editorial board meeting, Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie stated his intention to “change the New Jersey Supreme Court”. Christie was not specific with regard to the three justices who would be subject to reappointment prior to the 2013 gubernatorial election.

Subsequently, in an interview with New York Times reporter David Halbfinger published on October 30, 2009, Christie criticized the state’s highest court for “legislating from the bench” and cited three examples: 1) the Abbott v. Burke school funding parity cases; 2) the Mount Laurel low income housing mandate decisions; and 3) the decision allowing Frank Lautenberg to replace Robert Torricelli in 2002 as the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate. Again, Christie was not specific with regard to whom he might not reappoint to the Court, except to say that “I think that it (the Supreme Court) would be different than it is now.”

While candidate Christie retained flexibility as to his future Supreme Court appointments, Governor Christie is now under heavy political pressure to appoint four new strict constructionist justices prior to the November, 2013 gubernatorial election. The pressure comes not only from the right wing of the New Jersey Republican Party but also from GOP members of the state Assembly and Senate. These legislators experienced severe cuts in Fiscal Year 2011 state aid to their constituent school districts due to the necessity of the Christie administration complying with the Abbott mandate.

It is possible, however, for Governor Christie to bring about a more conservative, strict constructionist change in the direction of the New Jersey Supreme Court while only denying reappointment to one present justice, Roberto Rivera-Soto.

Justice John Wallace’s seven year term expires on May 20, 2010. His mandatory retirement date, due to his reaching the age of 70, is March 13, 2012. Various veteran New Jersey GOP conservatives and pundits are insisting that Christie not reappoint Wallace, and they are making this issue a litmus test as to the conservatism of the Governor.

Yet the truth is that a decision by the Governor to reappoint Wallace would not significantly delay any timetable to achieve a conservative majority on the seven justice Supreme Court. If Christie denies reappointment to Wallace, he will have the opportunity to appoint three new justices by March 1, 2012. If Christie decides to reappoint Wallace and wait until his mandatory retirement date to appoint his successor, he will be able to appoint three new justices by March 13, 2012. Thus, a decision to deny reappointment to Justice Wallace will only accelerate the Christie appointment of three new conservative justices by a mere twelve days.

The Governor may choose to use the issue of the Wallace reappointment as leverage to secure a commitment from Senate President Steve Sweeney to support all future Christie appointments to the Supreme Court, regardless of ideology, as long as there is no competency or ethics issue regarding the prospective appointee. Justice Wallace is a resident of Sweeney’s district, and his reappointment is a top priority to the Senate President. Accordingly, in exchange for the Wallace reappointment, Senator Sweeney may well be willing to make such a commitment. The Senate President is hardly a doctrinaire liberal.

If the Governor and Senate President Sweeney reach agreement as to the reappointment of Justice Wallace, Christie could proceed with the appointment of three new strict constructionist conservative Supreme Court justices according to the following scenario:

1. Governor Christie announces in the near future that he will not reappoint Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto in view of his being censured by the Supreme Court in 2007. Ethics has always been a hallmark of Chris Christie throughout his career in politics and government, and his refusal to reappoint Rivera-Soto would be consistent with the Governor’s philosophy and past actions.

At the expiration of Justice Rivera-Soto’s term, September 1, 2011, Governor Christie makes his first appointment to the Supreme Court.

2. Justice Virginia Long departs from the Supreme Court on her mandatory retirement date of March 1, 2012, and Justice Wallace leaves the Court on his mandatory retirement date of March 13, 2012. On these two dates, respectively, Governor Christie makes his second and third appointments to the Supreme Court.

Christie needs to have four strict constructionist justices, not just three, for a majority on the high court. Accordingly, there remains the issue of the reappointment of Justice Helen Hoens, whose term as Justice expires on October 23, 2013 – right at a critical point during the 2013 gubernatorial election campaign.

Justice Hoens is a jurist of high competency and, unlike Justice Rivera-Soto, without any ethical blemish. It would be difficult politically for Governor Christie to deny reappointment to a woman justice with these qualities right in the middle of his reelection campaign.

Yet Christie may reappoint Justice Hoens and still achieve a strict constructionist majority on the Supreme Court – if she follows the example set by former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts during the first two terms of the administration of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

During FDR’s first term, Justice Roberts consistently voted with the anti-New Deal majority on the U.S. Supreme Court which struck down as unconstitutional various New Deal enactments. In late 1936, however, Roberts began to switch his position on the New Deal. By the time FDR introduced his “court packing plan” at the beginning of his second term in 1937, Roberts was providing the necessary fifth vote to uphold New Deal legislation.

Governor Christie doubtless will be following the course of the votes cast and opinions written by Justice Hoens over the next three years. If she follows a strict constructionist course, the Governor may well feel confident that in the future she will join with his three previously appointed justices in refraining from legislating from the bench. Then, he would have the option of reappointing her and still achieving his goal of a more strict constructionist New Jersey Supreme Court.

The switch in direction by Justice Owen Roberts made possible the big government revolution of FDR’s New Deal. A strict constructionist jurisprudential course on the part of Justice Helen Hoens may well ensure the success of the citizen empowerment, limited government revolution of Governor Chris Christie.

N.J. School Budget Elections: The New Christie Paradigm is triumphant

2010-04-23T11:38:00.005-04:00

COMMENTARY

Last November, Chris Christie was elected New Jersey Governor in an election that many pundits, including myself, thought he would lose. In yesterday's school budget elections, however, Chris Christie achieved something even more impressive: He made history by forever changing the methodology of property tax control in New Jersey.

In my NewJerseyNewsroom.com columns of February 16 and March 21, 2010, I defined the Governor's approach to property taxes as "the New Christie Paradigm." Under this new and indeed revolutionary concept, cost control by local school district and municipal governing bodies, rather than state aid to municipalities and school districts, is viewed as the primary means of avoiding the need for property tax increases.

The growth of state municipal and school district aid during the past three decades has failed to keep property taxes low. Municipalities and school districts used their ever increasing state aid for new and expanded programs, rather than defraying the costs of existing programs. Property tax increases were implemented by municipalities and school districts to finance their skyrocketing spending.

All this changed with Chris Christie taking office as Governor in January, 2010. The new Governor had made it abundantly clear even during the transition that in order to close a record New Jersey budget deficit, he would be decreasing, rather than increasing state aid to municipalities and school districts. Governor Christie pledged that under no circumstances would he balance the state budget by enacting state tax increases, which had devastated New Jersey's economy during the past decade.

Under the New Christie Paradigm, the Governor emphasized that the school budget vote was the electorate's most important means of controlling school district spending and taxation. He urged the voters in yesterday's elections to defeat budgets they deemed to be excessive, particularly those in which the local teachers' union did not agree to a one year pay freeze.

It was evident even before the polls closed yesterday that the New Christie Paradigm had succeeded. The New Jersey electorate had been largely apathetic to school budget elections in the past, as evidenced by continuing abysmal turnout. Governor Christie had communicated to the electorate the effectiveness of the school budget vote as a tool to limit property tax increases. The citizenry of New Jersey responded to the Governor's message by going to the polls in record numbers.

After the polls were closed, the vote count showed that proposed school budgets had been rejected by the voters in about half the school districts in the state, a result truly unprecedented in modern New Jersey political history. The political and policy ramifications of these results will be enormous.

First, in spite of certain recent public opinion polls evidencing a decline in the Governor's popularity, yesterday's election results serve as a clear and convincing mandate for both the New Christie Paradigm on property taxes and the Governor's overall state Fiscal Year 2011 budget proposal. Many Trenton insiders felt that Governor Christie was taking a major gamble by urging defeat of certain school budgets. If it was a gamble, it paid off big time yesterday.

Second, the election results will certainly at least reduce the extent of property tax increases in districts where the proposed budgets have been defeated. Appeals by the school district to the local municipal governing board and ultimately to State Education Commissioner Bret Schundler will certainly result in substantial budget cuts and resulting property tax increase rollbacks.

Third, yesterday's results constitute the ultimate evidence of property tax revolt among the citizenry of New Jersey. There can now be little doubt now as to the overwhelming popularity of Governor Christie's proposal for a constitutional amendment mandating a 2.5 per cent "hard cap" on property tax increases. If the Democratic Assembly and Senate leadership fail to provide the necessary legislative votes to place this proposed amendment on the November, 2011 ballot, they will be giving the Republicans a winning issue in the 2011 legislative elections.

There is a final point to be made about the Chris Christie style, which has indeed gained him national attention.

Christie's style is direct, down to earth, and populist. What few have noted, however, is that it is totally devoid of any racist or anti-urban aspects.

In fashioning the school aid component of his proposed Fiscal Year 2011 state budget, the Governor was careful to ensure that his proposed cuts had the same five percent budgetary impact on suburban and urban districts. There is absolutely no plausible case that can be made against this budget of having an anti-urban or anti-minority impact.

American liberals have often alleged that certain conservative politicians and/or talk show hosts have engaged in subtle or not-so-subtle racist appeals. There is no way of credibly making such a claim against Chris Christie. The absence of any racist tone makes the Christie style all the more appealing.

It usually takes at least an entire term for a New Jersey governor to establish a legacy. In the case of Governor Chris Christie, however, yesterday's election results have already given him a legacy on the property tax issue. This legacy should serve as a solid foundation in his further efforts to both attract economic development and make life more affordable in New Jersey.

The Most Disquieting Aspect of Climategate

2010-04-02T00:04:00.001-04:00

Originally posted on politickernj.com

OP/ED

December 8, 2009 - 7:49pm

"Climategate” refers to the scandal of the information recently provided by hacked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University in Great Britain. The emails reveal: 1) attempts by global warming advocate scientists at CRU to conceal information running counter to their arguments; and 2) an inability on their part to provide a cogent explanation as to why global mean temperature has not increased an iota during the past decade.

The Climategate scandal is the most significant environmental story of this year and will doubtless affect the course of American climate change policy, notwithstanding Obama administration assertions that all is well and on course for a Copenhagen global greenhouse gas agreement. Just yesterday, Virginia Democrat U.S. Senator Jim Webb warned President Obama against unilaterally making any greenhouse gas commitment at Copenhagen that does not have the prior support of the United States Senate.

My views on climate change have not changed since the Climategate story broke. I believe that anthropogenic (human caused) emissions of greenhouse gases do have a warming impact on the planet. I have, however, questioned the predictions of catastrophic global warming consequences made by various scientists and political figures.

In making environmental decisions, however, I have consistently subscribed to the “precautionary principle”. This principle implies a duty for government to intervene and protect the public from exposure to harm when scientific investigation discovers a plausible risk in the course of having screened for other suspected causes.

Based upon the “precautionary principle”, I continue to support federal legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automotive and power plant sources. I also support New Jersey’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)

I do find most disquieting, however, the revelation that leading global warming advocates at East Anglia have continuously attempted to prevent climate change scientist skeptics from having their arguments heard, both in scientific journals and at conferences. These efforts have often taken the form of ad hominem attacks on the credibility of dissenting eminent climate change scientists. U.S. Representative James Sensenbrenner (R - Wisconsin) has gone so far as to label these attacks as “scientific fascism” and “scientific McCarthyism”.

Although most climate change scientists do subscribe to the view that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases is the cause of dangerous global warming, there is a minority of credible scientists who dispute this belief. Three most eminent scientists stand out in this regard: 1) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2) Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia; and 3) the late Fred Seitz, formerly the president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. All three of these experts have questioned both the assumption that the globe is having a significant warming increase and the belief that anthropogenic activity is the cause of such a dangerous climate trend.

It is essential that the climate change skeptics be afforded every opportunity to make their arguments. This is particularly critical in view of the emergence of empirical evidence that casts doubt upon the apocalyptic scenarios projected by certain warming advocates in both the scientific and political community. Such new items include 1) the fact that average global temperature has remained constant over the past decade; 2) that the ice and snow levels in Antarctica have actually increased over the past three decades; 3) that the Arctic ice level, in a reversal of a three decade downward trend, actually increased over the past two years; and 4) that factors other than anthropogenic activity appear to be affecting global climate, including variations in sunspot activity and ocean currents.

Before making critical long-range decisions on climate change, federal and state environmental policy makers would benefit from an intensive and extensive debate between climate change advocates and skeptics on these issues. Environmental agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) base their policies on sound science. Science can only be sound, however, if commonly held beliefs on topics such as climate change are continuously subject to questioning and investigation.

A free, vigorous, yet respectful continuing exchange of ideas is vital to the soundness and enhancement of existing science. That also involves the right of scientists to question commonly held scientific orthodoxies. The actions of the climate change advocates at CRU to discredit and intimidate the climate change skeptics run totally counter to these notions of unrestrained full debate and discussion.

As for President Obama, he also should at least consider the arguments of both climate change advocates and skeptics before committing the country to drastic greenhouse gas emission reductions. Otherwise, he runs the risk of replicating the failed diplomacy of former President Woodrow Wilson at the post-World War I Versailles conference in 1919.

Wilson went to Versailles confident he could commit the United States to membership in the League of Nations and its strict covenants. Leading U.S. Senators, most notably Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts, had serious concerns that the League could abridge America’s sovereign prerogatives. The Senate refused to ratify the Versailles treaty and Wilson’s commitment for American membership in the League.

Similarly, the doubts raised by Climategate may well result in the Senate refusing to honor pledges on greenhouse gases made by Obama at Copenhagen. Indeed, it would be most ironic if Obama’s Henry Cabot Lodge turned out to be a member of his own party, Senator Jim Webb.

Howard Cosell, Giants Stadium, and New Jersey Politics

2010-04-01T23:58:00.002-04:00

Originally posted on politickernj.com

With the Giants and Jets playing their last games at Giants Stadium, New Jersey newspapers have published numerous articles on the subject of “My Greatest Giants Stadium Memory.” As a pro football fanatic, I attended numerous Giant and Jet games over the years, and one would expect me to cite such contests as the 2000-2001 NFC Championship game or the 2000 Monday Night Football game in which the Jets came from behind 30-7 to score a 40-37 overtime victory over the Miami Dolphins.

As a political person, however, my leading Giants Stadium memory did not take place on the gridiron. In fact, it occurred nearly six years before Giants Stadium opened and spanned a period of two years: 1970-1972.

When I think of Giants Stadium, I will always recall first and foremost the late Howard Cosell excoriating the trio of New Jersey Governor William T. Cahill, Giants owner Wellington Mara, and David “Sonny” Werblin for moving the Giants from Yankee Stadium and New York City to the New Jersey Meadowlands. Sports journalist Larry Merchant once described Cosell as a man who made “the world of fun and games sound like the Nuremberg trials.” This description could be well applied to Humble Howard’s battle against the Unholy Alliance of Cahill, Mara, and Werblin.

Understand this: I adored Howard Cosell. I remember as a major moment in my life the exact date and time when I first heard his Brooklyn-nasal staccato voice on the radio: Monday, June 20, 1960, when my father and I sat in the kitchen and listened to Howard and Les Keiter broadcast live from the late, lamented Polo Grounds the bout in which Floyd Patterson knocked out Ingemar Johansson at 1 minute, 51 seconds in the fifth round, thereby becoming the first fighter to regain the world heavyweight championship.

From that night on, I was hooked on Howard. Every day, I would make sure that at 7:25 am and 5:55 pm, I would listen to Howard’s “Speaking of Sports” show on ABC-Radio. His broadcasts provided an education not only regarding the games and players but also the often deleterious way the business of sports impacts the sociology and politics of our nation.

He also focused on the racism in sports. The three athletes who have meant the most to me were Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali, and Roberto Clemente, not only for their athletic accomplishments but for their positive impact on society as well. Robinson and Ali had no greater champion than Howard Cosell.

So I revere Howard’s memory. Although I never met him in person, I felt that he was an important influence on my life. Now that I am in my post-governmental years, I have aspirations of writing a biography of him. In order to do his career justice, I would deem it essential to devote an entire chapter on Howard’s New Jersey crusade against Giants Stadium.

Cosell depicted the development of Giants Stadium as originating from a desire of Sonny Werblin to avenge his former business partners, most notably Leon Hess, for a bitter battle that resulted in his selling to them his ownership interests in the New York Jets and Monmouth Park racetrack. Sonny had been the key player in the signing by the Jets of Joe Namath in 1965, which gave the then American Football League credibility and made the Jets genuine rivals with the Giants in New York City.

In fact, the signing of Namath was the first in a chain of events that led to the merger between the National Football League and the American Football League. When the Jets upset the Baltimore Colts and won Super Bowl III after the 1968 season, Werblin was no longer around, due to the above-mentioned sale of his interest in the Jets to Hess and his other partners before the season.

Therefore, Werblin, according to Cosell, struck back against his erstwhile partners by joining forces with his former rival, Giants’ owner Wellington Mara, and his good friend, New Jersey Governor William T. Cahill to create the competitive Meadowlands Sports Complex, which would feature a racetrack and a stadium for the Giants. The irony is that the racetrack was envisaged as the major money maker of the complex, but the advent of casino gambling in Atlantic City in 1978 resulted in a decline of horse racing betting. Meanwhile, Werblin became the first chair of the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority.

Howard and his wife, Emmy were friends with Sonny Werblin, and his wife, Leah Ray. He regarded Werblin as a dynamic force and an outstanding person. By contrast, Cosell had disdain for Mara, whom he described in his autobiography, Cosell, as having a personality like “wet cement.”

So night after night on his radio broadcast, once the Meadowlands Sports Complex proposal became public knowledge, Cosell inveighed against Mara as a man who was deserting New York City, depriving the city of the Giants and needed tax revenue. He lambasted Governor Cahill and New Jersey in general by questioning why New Jersey should be raising $200 million to build a sports complex while Newark, Camden, Jersey City, and Trenton were all in a state of rapid and steep decline. Cosell would repeat these censures of New Jersey and the Giants at least weekly over a period of nearly two years.

Cosell’s most derisive comments regarding New Jersey, however, were those regarding the location of the Sports Complex, East Rutherford, New Jersey. He insisted that the Giants should henceforth be called the East Rutherford Giants. He would end his broadcasts by saying, “good luck to the East Rutherford Giants!”

His most scathing comment regarding East Rutherford were made in the context of the $10 million indemnity the American Football League owners had to pay the Giants for the territorial rights to New York City at the time of the merger with the National Football League. As Howard put it, “When the American Football League owners paid $10 million to the Giants, they were paying for the territorial rights to New York City and not East Rutherford, New Jersey!"

As somebody who grew up in Pittsburgh, I had never heard of East Rutherford, New Jersey. How ironic it is that years later, I would serve as Executive Director of the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission and have the responsibility to supervise the zoning in East Rutherford, one of the fourteen Meadowlands municipalities. The mayor of East Rutherford, Jim Casella was one of my favorite Meadowlands mayors.

In the early 1980s, when the Jets made public their intention to leave Shea Stadium in Queens, Howard severely criticized Leon Hess and the State of New Jersey for the move. He never criticized Governor Kean, however, as he had Governor Cahill. Furthermore his criticisms of Leon Hess did not have the same vitriol as his former criticisms of Mara. He did, however, ridicule New Jersey as a place that was seeking to attract professional sports franchises at a time when, at least according to Howard, certain Bergen County municipalities did not have decent sewage connections.

Was Howard justified in his crusade against Giants Stadium? My views on this topic are complicated and largely based on my experience as Meadowlands Commission Executive Director. I will save them for another column.

One thing is certain, however. Howard Cosell removed the false facade of professional sports as being a Camelot where wealthy sportsmen, dedicated to the public interest, altruistically ran their franchises for the benefit of the fans. He also proved conclusively that sports and politics, which supposedly are to be separate arenas, often do mix, in many cases to the detriment of society.

For all this, Howard Cosell definitely ranks as the leading figure in the history of sports journalism. Regardless of one’s views about the establishment of Giants Stadium and the exodus of the Giants and Jets from New York City, one can never deny Howard Cosell his well-earned place not only in the history of American sports but in the history of American journalism as well.

My New Jersey Mort Zuckerman Story

2010-04-01T23:23:00.001-04:00

Originally posted on politickernj.com

Both national and local media have been reporting about the possibility of New York Daily News publisher Mort Zuckerman seeking the Republican nomination for United States Senator from New York. If nominated, Zuckerman would run against the Democrat incumbent Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, provided she is able to prevail against a possible primary election challenge from former Congressman from Tennessee Harold Ford, Jr.

I know both Mort Zuckerman and Kirsten Gillibrand very well, having worked closely with both these individuals. I have enormous respect for both of them. It is my belief, however, that in a contest between these two individuals, Mort Zuckerman is likely to prevail. Given the number of Democrat U.S. Senate seats that are closely contested this November, it is quite possible that a Zuckerman victory in New York could be the decisive race that gives the GOP control of the United States Senate.

As Regional Administrator of Region 2 EPA during the administration of George W. Bush, I worked closely with the then member of the U.S. House of Representatives Kirsten Gillibrand after she scored an upset victory over John Sweeney in New York’s 20th Congressional District in the 2006 midterm elections. The highly publicized General Electric PCB Superfund site in Fort Edward, New York was located within her district, and this was the main issue on which we worked together.

I was not at all surprised by the appointment of Gillibrand by New York Governor David Paterson in January, 2009 to replace the then Senator Hillary Clinton after her appointment by President Obama as Secretary of State. In fact, I had previously predicted it on my Facebook page.

The media portrayal of Gillibrand as a policy and political lightweight is grossly unfair. I attribute this to liberal media bias against her, due to her past positive rating from the National Rifle Association.

Gillibrand was elected to Congress after a highly successful career as a lawyer with the nationally renowned Davis, Polk, and Wardwell law firm. She is an excellent policy analyst and a remarkably quick study on issues. Her political sagacity was demonstrated by the 62% reelection vote total she achieved in 2008 in her traditionally Republican district. She is personable and articulate, and I have absolutely no doubt that she will easily fend off the possible primary election challenge from Harold Ford.

Against anybody except former New York Governor George Pataki or Mort Zuckerman, Gillibrand would be highly likely to win reelection. Pataki, however, has apparently chosen not to run.

Mort Zuckerman would have a war chest that could easily dwarf that of Jon Corzine during his three statewide New Jersey campaigns. The Forbes magazine list of the 400 richest Americans published in September, 2009 placed Zuckerman at number 236 with a net worth of $1.5 billion.

And I can tell you from my personal experience – Mort Zuckerman was born to be a United States Senator.

As Assistant Commissioner of the former New Jersey Department of Commerce and Economic Development during the first term of former Governor Christie Whitman, I was assigned by the then Commerce Commissioner Gualberto “Gil” Medina in 1994 the task of negotiating the deal with Zuckerman that brought the New York Daily News printing plant from Red Hook in Brooklyn to Jersey City. Gil Medina was the finest Commerce Commissioner and economic development leader in New Jersey history, and he was generous in giving me numerous opportunities to display my capabilities.

Mort was a tough negotiator but always upfront and diplomatic. He was also entertaining – he would constantly regale me with stories about famous people he had recently visited, from Fidel Castro to Bill Clinton. He even told me about famous women he had dated, without providing me with any embarrassing or intimate details! Mort’s engaging quality will be of great value to him during any campaign.

My telephone conversations with Zuckerman took place on a daily and often nightly basis during the negotiations. He had an uncanny grasp of both the big picture and the details of the transaction. After the negotiation was successfully completed, to the benefit of both the Daily News and the State of New Jersey, I understood very well the qualities that have made Mort Zuckerman one of America’s most successful entrepreneurs.

Over the past sixteen years since the Daily News negotiation, I have seen numerous examples of Mort’s unsurpassed people skills and policy insight. As Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Zuckerman’s diplomatic skills were invaluable in both forging consensus among major American Jewish organizations and maintaining excellent relations with the Bush White House and Congress.

As an habitual viewer of the television show, The McLaughlin Group, I have watched Mort Zuckerman display an encyclopaedic comprehension of virtually every major American domestic and foreign policy issue. He forecast earlier than virtually everybody else the financial collapse that occurred in September, 2008. His intellect, political sagacity, and unlimited campaign financial resources will make him a winner over Senator Gillibrand.

I don’t know if Mort Zuckerman will run. If he does, get ready to address him as Senator Mortimer B. Zuckerman.

On Rebate Issue, Christie Will Win

2010-04-01T23:18:00.001-04:00

Originally posted on politickernj.com

The leading New Jersey Sunday newspapers yesterday confirmed that Governor Chris Christie will propose in his FY2011 budget the elimination of the homestead rebate program and its conversion into a tax credit program. Some taxpayers, most likely seniors and low income homeowners will be able to offset a small portion of their income tax liability with a credit, presumably less than what they presently receive in the form of a rebate check.

Christie is absolutely right to eliminate the rebate program. I have never understood the rationale of New Jersey homeowners sending tax dollars to Trenton and receiving back a small portion in the form of a rebate check. This is both inefficient and unwise. It is better that New Jerseyans not send so much tax money to Trenton in the first place.

The Governor, however, will have the good fortune to win not only on the policy merits but politically as well. There is no bigger myth in New Jersey politics than the notion that the rebate is a political sacred cow. If history is any guide, Christie’s elimination of the homestead rebate will help him balance the budget and avoid any state tax increase, without causing him any adverse political consequences. He certainly will incur political challenges from other budget measures – and Christie knows that – but not from the rebate elimination.

The myth of the rebate “third political rail” has its origin in the 1977 gubernatorial election between the then Democrat incumbent Brendan Byrne and Republican challenger Ray Bateman. In that race, the central issue was the New Jersey gross income tax recently enacted in 1976. Bateman started the campaign with a sizable lead but in the end was defeated by fourteen points. His defeat was attributed to two factors: 1) his alternative tax plan, which provided a one percent hike in the sales tax if needed to make up for any revenue shortage resulting from the elimination of the income tax; and 2) the mailing of the first rebate checks during the fall campaign, each bearing the signature of Brendan Byrne.

In retrospect, the real decisive factor in the 1977 contest was the fear that Bateman’s plan might result in both higher sales taxes and property taxes. To be sure, the rebate checks, then in the approximate amount of $180 were helpful to Byrne in the sense of appearing to be a benefit derived from the income tax. Still, the rebate program in itself would not have given Byrne a reelection victory in the absence of fears of the Bateman plan.

The most compelling evidence of the lack of political potency of the rebate appeared in 1992. Republicans had won veto-proof majorities in both the New Jersey Assembly and Senate in the 1991 elections. The central component of the Republican message in that campaign was the pledge to reduce the sales tax from seven to six percent, thereby eliminating Governor Jim Florio's 1990-enacted one percent sales tax increase.

During the first two years of his administration, Governor Florio and the then Democrat-controlled legislature had increased the rebate to $500 per household. In order to finance the promised sales tax decrease, the Republican legislators made cuts of over $1.1 billion in Governor Florio's proposed FY 1993 budget, including a reduction of the homestead rebate from $500 to $90 per household.

Throughout the 1993 legislative campaign, Democrat candidates made the charge that “the Republicans took $400 off your rebate and gave you back a penny in sales tax”. This attack was totally ineffectual. The Republicans easily retained comfortable majorities in both houses in the 1993 election. The rebate issue turned out to be a paper tiger for the Democrats.

It was during the 2001 election, however, when I learned why the rebate’s political impact was highly overrated.

Since 1997, I had developed a close personal relationship with one of the state’s leading Democrats, a man who had actually been helpful to Governor Christie Whitman in her 1997 reelection victory over Jim McGreevey. He and I began to have lunch together on a monthly basis and discuss our perceptions about political and policy trends in the state. At these meetings, neither of us would display any partisan bluster.

I arrived at our January 2001 lunch cautiously optimistic about the election chances of the recently inaugurated Acting Governor Don DiFrancesco. This was, of course before the surfacing of various ethics allegations that caused DiFrancesco to drop out of the race. One of the factors that gave me confidence was DiFrancesco’s role as Senate President in sponsoring legislation that would more than double the average rebate from $240 to $500. This legislation would be signed into law by him as Acting Governor in June, 2001.

My Democrat friend came to lunch that month in a most confident mood. He began our conversation by relating how internal Democrat polls showed McGreevey comfortably leading DiFrancesco. I then brought up DiFrancesco’s role in increasing the rebates. My opposition party friend calmly responded that the Democrats had polled the issue and that it would not help the Acting Governor. The reason was most interesting – and compelling:

“Alan, our polls found that voters regard the rebate as a nice small cash benefit, but they do not identify it as property tax relief.”

That statement from my Democrat friend in 2001 taught me more about the political significance – or lack of same – of the rebate than anything else I had heard or read during all my years in New Jersey politics.

So when Chris Christie eliminates the rebate program, he will not be perceived by a majority of voters as a Governor depriving the taxpayers of property tax relief. Additionally, his tax credit proposals can be accurately portrayed as providing an income tax cut. In short, Governor Christie stands to gain a win-win, both in policy and political terms, by his abrogation of the rebate program.

Chris Christie will achieve three historic fiscal objectives

2010-04-01T19:28:00.002-04:00

Originally posted on newjerseynewsroom.com

On Election Night 2009, the newly elected governor, Chris Christie, promised to turn Trenton upside-down. Both supporters and critics of the Governor agree that he has done that with the introduction of his Fiscal Year 2011 budget.

No Governor's proposed budget ever is enacted without some modification by the legislature. Governor Christie, however, has done a superb job in educating the electorate as to the severity of the state's fiscal crisis and the necessity for budget reductions that will be painful.
Because of the Governor's groundwork and preparation, he is highly likely to achieve three historic fiscal objectives:

* The passage of the Fiscal Year 2011 budget without the reenactment of the Corzine surcharge on incomes in excess of $400,000;
* Public acceptance of what I labeled in my February 16, 2010 column as" the New Christie Paradigm," in which cost control by local school district and municipal governing bodies, rather than state financial aid, is viewed as the means of keeping property taxes low;
* Legislative placement on the ballot and passage by the electorate this November of the Governor's proposed 2.5 percent "hard cap" on property tax increases.

All three of these objectives are essential to the revival of New Jersey's economy and the end of runaway property tax increases in the Garden State.

The first Christie objective, his refusal to reenact the Corzine income tax surcharge is a sine qua non in his efforts to attract new businesses and expand existing ones in the Garden State. The Corzine tax surcharge was toxic to small successful unincorporated businesses. Corporations considering moving into the Garden State were deterred by the additional tax burden the surcharge would place on top-level executives. The surcharge was intended to redistribute wealth, but instead it redistributed taxpayers by hastening the exodus of wealthy New Jerseyans to other lower tax states.

Business executives and entrepreneurs inside and outside New Jersey are looking to see if Christie can become the first New Jersey Governor to balance a budget by unprecedented draconian cuts without an income or sales tax increase. This is truly a test of the Governor's credibility. Like anybody else, Christie has had highs and lows in his political career. He has never, however failed a credibility test, and he will not fail this one either.

The Democratic Assembly and Senate will almost certainly pass a budget that includes reenactment of the Corzine tax surcharge. The message of the Democrat legislative leadership is one of class warfare, claiming that Chris Christie is favoring the rich in his budget at the expense of poor and middle class New Jerseyans.

This class warfare strategy will not work. It failed to stop President Ronald Reagan in 1981 from obtaining Congressional passage of his historic tax cut legislation which reduced the top income tax bracket from 70 to 50 percent. The Reagan tax cuts were the prime factor in his generating the longest period of sustained non-inflationary economic growth during the Cold War era.

Governor Christie knows this history, and he will use his veto powers to thwart the reenactment of the Corzine tax surcharge and any appropriations in excess of those in his proposed budget. The Democratic legislative leadership will not be able to enlist any Republican Senators or Assembly members to vote for an override of any gubernatorial vetoes.

Christie's victory on both the Corzine tax surcharge issue and appropriations will enhance his credibility in gaining acceptance by the electorate of the New Christie Paradigm. No longer will there be a continuous escalation of state aid to school districts and municipalities in a vain effort to contain runaway local property tax increases. The message of Governor Christie to property taxpayers is clear: It is the responsibility of your local municipal and school district officials to stop runaway property tax increases by keeping costs low. His victory on the tax surcharge issue will impress upon the electorate in general and school district and municipal officials in particular that this is a Governor one must take most seriously.

Governor Christie has pledged to provide tools to assist municipalities and school districts in their cost control efforts. His proposed constitutional amendment limiting property tax increases to 2.5 percent is the best such possible tool. It will provide enormous leverage to municipal and school district governing bodies in negotiating with local unions. Public opinion will overwhelmingly support passage of this amendment, and I have no doubt that Democratic and Republican legislators will provide the necessary 24 votes in the Senate and 48 votes in the Assembly to place the amendment on the November, 2010 ballot.

There is a compelling populist message in the Christie constitutional amendment proposal that must not be overlooked by the Trenton political community. The amendment takes away from Trenton bureaucrats the power to grant cap waivers. The authority to authorize taxation by school districts and municipalities in excess of the cap is vested exclusively with the voters in a local referendum. This Christie message of citizen empowerment is one that resonates strongly in this era of public anger and disillusionment with government.

In presenting his Fiscal Year 2011 budget, the Governor has been bold and willing to disregard the conventional political wisdom that has prevailed in Trenton throughout the past three decades. When he announced his candidacy for Governor at the New Jersey Performing Arts Center in Newark in early 2009, Chris Christie promised to govern as if he were a one term Governor. He certainly is doing that.

The good news for both Chris Christie and New Jersey, however, is that his success in attaining the three fiscal objectives described above will lay the foundation for both an economic revival and a more affordable New Jersey. This could well result in Chris Christie becoming a two term Governor as well.