Blue Jersey - Front Page

Health Care Reform clears hurdle

Hopeful — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:04:43 GMT

By a 60-39 vote, the Senate agreed to proceed with the debate on the health care reform bill. Senator Bob Menendez spoke earlier today:

I like the part about "socialism" and all the Republican "no's" in the past. Menendez also issued a statement following the vote:

"Each step we take toward health insurance reform brings families closer to the type of health insurance security and relief from ballooning costs that will prolong lives, protect paychecks and cut the budget deficit. Tonight was a major one of those steps, though there are a number that still lie ahead. With dozens of my colleagues not even willing to work on this bill constructively through our democratic process, this vote laid bare who is for change and who is for more of the same at any cost. The American people can look at this vote and the forthcoming debate and tell clearly who stands on the side of American families counting on their insurance to be there when they need it the most and who wants to protect the insurance companies no matter what. Some of my colleagues will seek to address their concerns about this bill with constructive ideas, but others who have no new ideas and merely want to defend the status quo will instead try to wreak havoc with the tired, old fabrication and fear tactics used for generations to protect special interests. In the end, the American people will understand who takes their struggles with insurance companies seriously and who is only serious about protecting insurance company profits. I believe the voices of families who just want for a fighting chance against insurance company bureaucrats will prevail and we will finally have health insurance reform."

Saturday Evening Video Theater - Think Equal #4 Counsel Equal

Rosi Efthim — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:33:22 GMT

This is the 4th, and last, of the Think Equal ads, called Counsel Equal, about the upsetting and emotional fallout to living as a committed couple who wants to get married, but can't.

All thanks to Jack Bohrer, and Juan Melli, for these. They got them written, shot and paid for. What else from Blue Jersey's past should we be reprising this weekend on Marriage Equality?

Or ... what do you want to write?

Saturday Evening Video Theater - Think Equal #3 Barring Equal

Rosi Efthim — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:57:00 GMT

Okay. This is my all-time favorite of the Think Equal ads, mostly because much of it was improvised and when we were at the studio shooting it, we were laughing hysterically (but quietly) at the last line.

Maybe you know somebody who hasn't made up their mind yet on Marriage Equality, somebody you can send this ad to ...

Saturday Afternoon Video Theater - Think Equal #2, Check Equal

Rosi Efthim — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:36:00 GMT

Here's the 2nd of the fab Think Equal ads, on the tax complications inherent in civil union families that we made in 2006.

We'll be running a reprising some of the best marriage equality posts in Blue Jersey's four-year history. Do you have a favorite marriage equality diary from our collection of posts? Let us know what it is in Comments, and maybe we'll re-run it this weekend. Or write one of your own, like this.

Saturday Afternoon Video Theater - Think Equal #1

Rosi Efthim — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:41:51 GMT

Maybe you should upgrade to a marriage ...?

Okay. As a bunch of us - I've seen calls to action from Garden State Equality, DFA-NJ, Ocean Grove United and informally to ACLU-NJ friends - get ready to head down Monday morning and lobby for Marriage Equality, Blue Jersey's going to be reprising some of the best of the hundreds of posts on marriage equality written here at Blue Jersey.

The Think Equal ads - 4 light-and-easy take-offs on the Mac Guy and PC Guy ads Apple's been running for years - are one of the best things this site has ever done, and among the people we have to thank for them are Jack Bohrer, who blogs here as JRB and at Huffington Post under his own name, and Blue Jersey founder Juan Melli. Jack tells the story of the national award-winning ads here at HuffPo. Enjoy!

Marriage Maddening the Garden State

Allison_Peltzman — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:18:58 GMT

Allison looks at Mad Men and sees New Jersey. Hell-o? Then sews it all up with a shout out to her ACLU-NJ friends to join her Monday in Trenton for marriage equality. By the way, this is Allison's first-ever post at Blue Jersey. Beat that with a stick! Thanks, Allison - - promoted from the diaries by Rosi

"Maybe it's not the time for civil rights."

It was shocking when Betty Draper said that to her black housekeeper Carla upon hearing the now-infamous news that a bomb in a Birmingham church had killed four little girls in 1963 Alabama.

Mad Men has become an American pop-culture sweetheart partly because the anachronistic, chauvinistic, homophobic, racist, politically incorrect sentiments sound absurd today. Characters toss back bigotry as easily as a glass of Jameson at the beginning of their workday. It seems just as wrong, and there's about as much slurring in both.

If only the prejudice on the show were actually anachronistic. Earlier this week, New Jersey's Senate Majority Leader Steve Sweeney told the press that civil rights for New Jersey couples should wait. And we say to him, if not now, then when?

If New Jersey doesn't pass marriage legislation now, any possibility in the near future is as good as gone. We have just a few weeks until Governor Corzine, who supports the right for gay and lesbian couples to marry, officially hands over the reins to Governor-elect Chris Christie, who vocally does not.

We have a state whose majority supports equal rights for gay couples, we have a legislature whose majority supports equal rights for gay couples and we have a governor - for now - who also supports equal rights for gay couples.

But we don't have a leader in the state senate brave enough to say, "That's enough. New Jersey is going to do the right thing."

Instead of taking up the responsibility to do what they know is right, they're taking cover behind the economy. We have four years ahead of us to fix New Jersey's withering finances. We have less than two months to make sure that people aren't forced to live with the indignity of discrimination brought on by civil unions, affecting every corner of their lives, every day of their lives.

I wasn't shocked that Betty Draper wavered on civil rights in front of Carla. Coldness is Betty's signature characteristic; callousness isn't surprising. I was shocked because, from the vantage point of the 21st Century, after this country fought against the legacy of some of the darkest episodes of human history - the middle passage, hundreds of years of slavery, a brutal war that killed more Americans than any other, the failure of reconstruction, the nadir of American race relations, Jim Crow laws, unending injustices - I could not imagine what the world would look like if the leaders of the 60s had thrown their hands up and said, "You know, maybe it's not the time for civil rights."

Americans made it the time for civil rights. They didn't politely ask politicians to pencil them into their schedules - they left the politicians without a choice, and they changed the world. Segregation came to an end, miscegenation laws were repealed, American soldiers protected the rights of African Americans in America's schools and streets, and people across the country rode buses for days to march for miles in some of the most dangerous places in the world for a black person or a Jew. The equality they all hungered for eclipsed their fear of taking personal risks. And those sacrifices make politicians' political fears look like a farce.

Mr. Smith has never lived in Washington, and he certainly doesn't go to Trenton. It usually takes an extraordinary leader to take bold action, even to do the right thing - with one exception. Politicians take bold action when the chorus of Americans together becomes too loud to ignore.

Can you imagine what the world would look like if the people concerned about civil rights in 1963 decided that it wasn't the time for civil rights? Would Loving v. Virginia be a 2009 case instead of one from 1967? Even if we're constantly fighting against backslides in our voting rights, at least we have the Voting Rights Act to hold our government to. We don't have poll-tax free-for-alls.

"But gay rights. That's so new and radical."

It's not, though. We've been in the same place for decades. The Stonewall raids, the assassination of Harvey Milk, the panicked response to AIDS. It was never the time for civil rights back then. So why not now?

January Jones, the actress behind the Betty Draper mask, lampooned her character's cheerful bigotry in a Saturday Night Live sketch that told housewives how to host the perfect party. "Homosexuals should be addressed by Ms. or Mrs., depending on their age. If a black person arrives ... just kidding. A black person won't arrive. That's an example of party humor."

It's tongue in cheek, sure, but it's still the same mindset that declared, "Now isn't the time for civil rights." It's a mindset of exclusion, and it's rooted in the belief that only some people deserve to have their constitutional promises kept. That's not who we are as Americans, and that's not who we want to be in New Jersey.

We've come too far to retreat. The "economy" excuse is a red herring, a false dichotomy, an easy way out, and just plainly and simply wrong. Marriage would bring money into New Jersey, and it would solve the financial straits of gay couples who struggle because their civil unions deprive them of health benefits.

It is the time for civil rights, because our momentum as a country pulls us toward the expansion of rights, not their restriction. I want to be shocked in 40 years because a character on a retro TV show about the early 21st century suggests that now isn't the time for marriage equality. I don't want to live in a world in 40 years where I have to tell myself, "Well, maybe this time we'll succeed."

It's up to New Jersey legislators, who know that marriage equality is the right thing, to secure the civil rights of our state's gay and lesbian families. But it's up to us, the rest of New Jersey, to pressure our state's legislators into not having a choice.

If you live in New Jersey, there are ways you can take immediate action. We need you to e-mail your state senator, call the senate majority leader at 856-251-9801 -- urge him to take up marriage legislation -- and rally with the ACLU-NJ in Trenton Monday, November 23.

We're meeting at:
Garden State Equality's New Jersey Office
110 W. State Street, Trenton
Monday, November 23, 2009
8:30 a.m.

If there's a day to take off work for a cause, it's Monday. Your day off could mean a lifetime of equality for families in New Jersey.

If you live in another state, just promise to help us raise hell, deal? If we win, we'll celebrate at the Atlantic City boardwalk. If we lose, we'll go to the casinos and take bets on what we'll see first: civil rights for New Jersey's gay families or a lesbian Miss America.

PETA wants Christie to "Pledge to be a Veg"

Jason Springer — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:45:04 GMT

The Outdoors section of the NY Post the other day said that PETA wants the newly elected Governor to become a vegetarian, even if only temporarily:

The day after the election, PETA sent Christie a letter urging him to sign onto the group's 30-day "Pledge to be Veg." PETA zeroed in on Christie's weight, which had become a point of contention during the election.
According to PETA executive vice president Tracy Reiman, "The best thing that governor elect Christie can do to help himself, the environment, and animals on factory farms -- and the best way for him to serve as an example to all New Jersey residents -- is to go vegan, at least for 30 days."

So Peta wants him to give up meat. I doubt he goes along with it, but at least they got their name and issues in the paper. What would you want Christie to pledge to do when he takes office?

Garrett vs. 1.4 million Home Buyers

rmfretz — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:42:57 GMT

Live in the 5th congressional district? You can get reporting at Blog the Fifth you won't find in your newspaper, plus context on some of the nutty, nutty things your congressman does, plus opportunities to join up with efforts to make a change there. - - - Promoted from the diaries by Rosi.
Cross posted from Blog the Fifth

Representative Scott Garrett finally explained why he voted against extending unemployment benefits and the first time home buyer tax credit:

So, in sum, we have a program rampant with fraud, which gives taxpayer dollars to people who don't legitimately qualify, and fails to appropriately credit the individuals that do qualify. It's clear that employees of the IRS were aware of the problems with claims process for this program, as the inspector general found 53 cases of IRS employees filing "illegal or inappropriate" claims for the credit. In its current form, this program costs taxpayer about $1 billion a month and is expected to cost $15 billion for the year. Rather than terminate this program, Congress voted on November 5 to expand the program to homeowners looking to buy a replacement principle residence. How many more four-year olds will fraudulently receive taxpayer money under this program before Congress realizes this is a terrible idea?
Voting to expand this program would have been irresponsible of me, and an abdication of my responsibility as a guardian of taxpayer dollars. The Homebuyer Tax Credit Program was a poison pill to otherwise well-intended legislation.

It bears repeating that Garrett was one of 2.7% of the House to vote no on this bill, so it hardly was a poison pill.
It also bears repeating that Garrett has never stood up with the same conviction regarding funds going to fraud in Iraq, which has funded those who kill our troops.

Garrett gave a number of stats that, while far from ideal, pale in comparison to the good the program has done. From the Gazette, here are the numbers that were largely reported (bolding Garrett):

? 19,300 electronically filed 2008 tax returns where people claimed the First-Time Homebuyer Credit, yet had not purchased a house, claiming that they intended to do so in the future. Cost to the taxpayer: $139 million.
? 74,000 credit claims by filers who it was later determined weren't first-time homebuyers. Cost to the taxpayer: $500 million.
? 580 taxpayers younger than 18 years of age who claimed First-Time Homebuyer Credits; the youngest of whom was a four-year old. Cost to the taxpayer: $4 million.
? 3,200 individuals claiming credits thought to be alien residents, which are prohibited from receiving most Federal public benefits. Cost to the taxpayer: $20.8 million.

It's unfortunate to see that if you add all the numbers together that roughly 6.5% of claims were fraudulent. However, the IRS is pursuing criminal investigations and suspending rebates, so those folks will be dealt with in time.

In the meantime, it also means that 93.5% of the submissions appear to be valid, which means roughly 1.4 million new homeowners have been helped by the program.

Garrett's statement explaining his vote against the bill is nothing more than a spotty claim to righteousness that makes the perfect the enemy of the good. Garrett seems to want to poison the discussion by ignoring the good the program has done, as well as the measures being taken to correct the program. That's a disservice to constituents and all of the home buyers and sellers within the district who benefit from the program.

Quote of the Day: "Reality sometimes gets up and smacks you in the face"

Jason Springer — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:15:00 GMT

Talking about Chris Christie's speech before the League of Municipalities in Atlantic City, Former Governor Christie Whitman offered this observation in Charles Stile's column:

"He's sending a message that he's willing to take on some of the sacred cows. And he needs to," former Republican Gov. Christie Whitman said. "But we'll see. Reality sometimes gets up and smacks you in the face."

That's right, we will see what reality does to Christie's promises. While she's talking about Christie and his tough rhetoric about taking on just about everyone, that statement applies on so many different levels beyond just Chris Christie and what he has said.

Menendez talks financial regulatory reform and implementing accountability on Wall Street

Jason Springer — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:00:00 GMT

The US Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs committee has taken up legislation dealing with financial regulatory reform. Mondaq had more on the bill:

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd has introduced a discussion draft of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2009 (the "Dodd Bill"), which comprehensively addresses financial regulatory reform, encompassing the range of issues covered in the Obama Administration's proposed legislation and several bills pending in the House of Representatives. For further discussion of the Administration's proposed legislation, please see the July 28, 2009 Alert and the August 4, 2009 Alert and for the House legislation please see the October 20, 2009 Alert, the October 27, 2009 Alert and the November 3, 2009 Alert. Many provisions of the Dodd Bill are similar to other regulatory reform bills, such as the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency ("CFPA"). However, the Dodd Bill also contains significant differences from other regulatory reform proposals, such as (a) combining all prudential bank supervision into a new agency, the Financial Institutions Regulatory Authority (the "FIRA"), (b) creating an entire new agency to regulate systemic risk, the Agency for Financial Stability (the "AFS"), and (c) reducing the powers of the FRB. Based on recent testimony, the Dodd Bill largely reflects the viewpoint of FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, while the legislation introduced by House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank largely reflects the viewpoint of FRB Chairman Ben Bernanke.

The Mondaq story has a pretty comprehensive breakdown of the components in the legislation. Here is the opening statement from Senator Menendez:

Menendez said it's time to corral the Wall Street bulls who saw red and ran wild. He said he will introduce amendments to strengthen the bill:

It's time for transparency, Mr. Chairman. It's time to increase the enforcement budget at the SEC. It's time to help innocent victims of fraud and Ponzi schemes recoup their losses through the Security Protection Investor Corporation (SIPC) or other means. It's time for accountability and regulations that protect American families while allowing our market based economy to run smoothly - but not run amok. These are necessary reforms and I believe they are long overdue.

This will no doubt be a big fight in Congress as the Financial Industry has the resources to push back and lobby against tighter regulations on their business practices.