Blue Jersey - Recent Diaries

There should be a Godwin's Law for Debating the Primary Election in CD9

Bertin Lefkovic — Wed, 30 May 2012 03:30:00 GMT

Since Godwin's Law specifically concerns making analogies or comparisons with Hitler and/or the Nazis, It is possible that I may have already violated it by calling for a similar law concerning how we debate the Democratic primary election in CD9, but because I believe that the coward/fighter card has been played to such an extent that even an "academic" (with political ambitions that could be realized by having good friends in Clifton and West Paterson in particular and Passaic County in general) like Mark Alexander and the Star-Ledger editorial board are willing to play gutter politics and use it, I am willing to chance it, because reasonable people need to recognize not just the rhetoric's fraudulence, but also how far out of bounds it truly is.

For anyone who is not familiar with Godwin's Law, wikipedia describes it as follows:

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion-regardless of topic or scope-someone inevitably makes some comparison to Hitler and the Nazis.

But even more important than the law itself is the more common corollary:

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful.[9]

Applied similarly to the Democratic primary election in CD9, such a corollary/law would disqualify any argument involving a candidate's choice to run in a particular district versus another district, because while it is all well and good to repeat a desperate campaign's only talking point ad nauseum (or reductio ad Rothmanum if you will), doing so only serves to lower the level of discourse and does not reflect well on the person making the argument, regardless of whether or not they might have personal political motives for debasing themselves and destroying their credibility in such a way.
There are a lot of arguments that Mark Alexander could have made to justify his endorsement of Bill Pascrell, Jr.. As 12M has cited on so many occasions, his voting record on trade issues is better than Rothman's. He has also been a leader on issues concerning first responders and homeland security. Yet with this and other issues that he could have discussed at his disposal, he chose to lead with the following:

I know that if Bill were drawn into a congressional district with Scott Garrett - the darling of the Tea Party - he would not back down. He would have brought that fight right to Garrett's doorstep and put another seat in play to regain the majority for the Democrats, just like he did in 1996.

For a Seton Hall Law professor, whose "scholarship" focuses on the intersection of law, politics and government, Mark displays a broad and deep ignorance of NJ politics and exhibits a pathetic willingness to allow the Pascrell campaign to write his endorsement for him. If he had even a narrow and shallow understanding of NJ politics and even the bare minimum of self-respect required to thoughtfully consider the arguments that he is making when crafting an endorsement of a candidate in an election of this magnitude, he would have recognized the following:

1) Bill Pascrell, Jr. had a representative on the congressional redistricting commission, so if he was the fighter that he and others claim that he is, he had every opportunity to demand the head-to-head matchup with Garrett in a competitive district that they claim Rothman ran away from. A district, consisting of all of Passaic and Sussex Counties and SW Bergen, could have easily been constructed, resulting in a competitive district of his own in the remainder of Bergen County for Rothman. However, Pascrell's representative negotiated a safe district for Pascrell on both the Democratic and Republican maps. The only significant differences between the two maps with regards to the merger of the old CD5, CD8, and CD10 into the new CD5 and CD9 were the degrees of competitiveness of the new CD5.

2. When Bill Pascrell defeated Bill Martini in 1996, he was not facing a tough Republican opponent in a tough Republican district like Rush Holt did when he lost to Mike Pappas that same year (two years before defeating him in their post-"Twinkle Twinkle Kenneth Starr" rematch). He (Pascrell) was running against a freshman Republican two years after he (Martini) had defeated a freshman Democrat in the 1994 "angry white male" (I guess being Jewish prevented Herb Klein from appearing white enough for the "angry white male" CD8 voters that threw him out of office) Gingrich Revolution two years after he (Klein) had replaced Robert Roe (the same one with his name on the Federal building where Pascrell's district office is located), a Democrat who had held the seat for over twenty years.

Thus, when Pascrell and his endorsers/surrogates repeat the talking point that he somehow answered the call (cleared the field would be more accurate) in 1996 to run unopposed in the Democratic primary election for Congress in a Democratic district in a Presidential election year, where his election (as well as his re-election in 1998, 2000, and beyond until this year) was all but guaranteed, what they should really be saying is that he made the most of his opportunity to ascend from his positions of Assemblyman and Mayor to the Congress, because that is all that he did.

There was nothing magnanimous or self-sacrificial about anything that Pascrell did through his initial run for Congress or has done ever since. He risked nothing by running and gained everything, becoming the de facto boss of Passaic County (if he wasn't already, which could also explain Klein's 1994 loss) in the process.

This year's Democratic primary election in the new CD9 could have produced a great debate and provided us with a tremendous amount of insight into the values of its constituents, comparing Pascrell's strong positions on important economic issues with Rothman's mixed record on the same or similar issues as well as Rothman's strong positions on important social issues with Pascrell's mixed record on the same or similar issues.

Instead, otherwise intelligent people, who are so consumed with defeating Scott Garrett, chose to make a single decision, which many other elected officials have made before without being subjected to the same degree of cruxifixion (yes, Rothman is Jewish, but so was Jesus), the be all and end of this race. When you consider how rare contested primary elections are in this state, I think that it is safe to argue that we all, opponents and supporters of Pascrell and Rothman, have failed miserably in elevating the level of discourse in this race.

Mark Alexander's endorsement is not the only example of this failure. It is just the most recent one. The only difference between him and the rest of us is he might have something to gain from doing so, while the rest of us have just been narrow-minded and short-sighted.

Another Health Care Post

War Horse — Tue, 29 May 2012 19:23:11 GMT

Cross Posted from Retire Garrett

Scott Garrett's primary opponents - he does have a pair - were both quoted in The Patch stating their agreement with Scott Garrett in their opposition to the Affordable Care Act. Specifically:

Businesses with 50 or more employees will be required to purchase insurance for their workers under the new law, and Cino said businesses will deliberately not hire more than 49 workers to avoid the expense of purchasing healthcare for their workforces.
"You have a system which creates disincentive for businesses to hire," Cino said. "Obama's healthcare plan will produce results that people don't want."

Small business owners who employ fewer than 50 worker are largely exempted from being required to provide coverage to their workers. These companies will not pay a partial tax penalty for failing to provide insurance. Businesses with more than 50 employees that do not offer coverage will be taxed based on the size of their payrolls, but the cost will be significantly less than the cost of providing insurance benefits.
The need for reform is partially based upon the reality that some companies that could otherwise afford to pay a share of their employees' health care costs choose not do so. As a result, any of their employees not buying insurance on their own end up in the emergency room with no ability to pay their bills. The taxpayers are then forced to pay these expenses.

Health insurance is the one expense we will all incur. Unless we set sick people adrift on an iceberg, that cost is definitely coming. The only question that remains is who's going to pay the tab?

Republicans don't like Medicare or Medicaid. They oppose an individual mandate. They oppose an employer mandate. They say they want to "Repeal and Replace" the Affordable Care Act. With what? Who do they wish to pay for these inevitable costs? Right now the cost of providing health care to the uninsured is paid for by the rest of us in the form of higher premiums and higher taxes.

The Democrats have been hard at work searching for a workable solution to this crisis. On the other hand, the Republicans have stood on the sidelines and thrown metaphorical rocks at any forward progress Democrats try to enact. We've seen how market-based approaches have failed in this arena. So, Mr. Garrett what's your plan?

How Scott Garrett Operates

War Horse — Tue, 29 May 2012 02:19:49 GMT

Cross Posted from Retire Garrett

Laurie, I hate to be the one to tell you this but Scott Garrett is not telling you the truth and you deserve better. From looking at her blog - Cook Scrap Craft, Laurie is a constituent of Scott Garrett's and among her other interests and passions, she interested in seeing strong FDA labeling practices as it relates to gluten-free foods and medicines. In fact, she's so concerned about the issue that she took the time to write her Congressman to let him know how she feels. Further, the Congressman wrote her back and she was so excited she was compelled to post it on her blog for all to see. She writes: I was very happy to receive a positive email back from Congressman Scott Garrett on the topic, and I wanted to share it with you.
Congressman Garrett writes back to thank her for her interest and says he shares her concerns and agrees with her position. He talks about what's taking place in Washington as it relates to this issue and assures her that he's on her side. This is a great story expect for one small fact that Scott Garrett fails to inform poor, Laurie. He's telling her what she wants to hear and hopes she won't dig any deeper.

You see on several occasions and as recently as March of this year, Scott Garrett has cast his vote in support of the Ryan Budget and on his own budget which is even more severe when it comes to reducing discretionary spending. On March 20th of this year, Johnathan Bernstein of The Washington Post laid it all out in black and white:

The real tell in Ryan's budget is that in the long run, he projects that all discretionary spending (and automatic spending outside of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) be reduced to 3.75 percent of GDP by 2050. Why does that matter? Because that category includes military spending, which as CBO reminds us has never dropped below 3 percent* of GDP since World War II. Since Ryan doesn't want to cut the military, that would leave less than one percent of GDP - to fund the entire rest of the government.
In other words, Ryan's long term proposal would basically shut down the federal government except for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and the military. Republicans don't really want to shut down the FDA, the FBI, and the national parks, not to mention patrolling the border and farm programs and roads. And yet that's the implication of this document. It's not even remotely realistic - and neither is Ryan's claim that his budget would cut the deficit way down.

Scott Garrett can say he's with you, Laurie, but his voting record says otherwise. As The Newark Star-Ledger described him this weekend, Rep. Scott Garrett (R-5th), an uncompromising extremist who personifies what is wrong with Congress today.

Scott Garrett understands his voting record is out of step with practically every Congressional District in this country, let alone the moderately Republican leaning 5th District of New Jersey. But that does not stop Garrett from saying anything he wants because most of his constituents never bother to follow how the man votes on matters of interest or concern to them. I'll forward this post to Laurie's blog in the spirit of opening a dialogue with her. I'll let you know if I hear back from her.

Pascrell Supporters Spotted At The Ferry To NYC

johnleesandiego — Sun, 27 May 2012 12:36:59 GMT

A sore note in the 5th

jackstanton — Sat, 26 May 2012 00:39:58 GMT

I understand that when an anomaly runs for the nomination as a Democrat, it is easy to dismiss them. After all, we hope that any candidate who runs as a Democrat is genuinely a Democrat. This is probably what led Bill Orr to exclude Diane Sare from his round up of the NJ5 democratic primary. But was this too hasty? (On a personal note, I support Jason Castle in this race)

Diane is a Larouche Democrat. As a Democrat, I find many of her political positions "nauseating." The pictures she and her supporters carry around of President Obama with a Hitler mustache are appalling. Plus she does not have the Democratic line in any of the Districts four counties.

Nonetheless, as reported by the press, at both debates her supporters have far outnumbered other attendees. According to the Lehigh Valley News in the second debate, in which more than 100 people showed up, there were more than fifty attendees in Diane Sare t-shirts.

To add to this, she has outspent her two Democratic rivals. To date, the FEC shows that she has raised close to $30,000 and spent nearly $25,000. Jason has raised and spent less than half of that, and Gussen is at $0.

So my warning is this: while it remains highly unlikely that Diane Sare is the nominee in November, she cant be dismissed. If primary campaigns are about enthusiasm and resources, then she can rightly claim a lead in both areas. Maybe it says more about a slow start by the other two candidates, but we should easily outpace a fringe candidate.

My advice, donate and volunteer and get involved today!

Christie ran as Dem in 1993

ken bank — Fri, 25 May 2012 20:23:21 GMT

Christie once tried to run for State Senate as a Democrat. I've been wanting to write this for a long time but until now could not find a source to link to.

Twenty years ago when I lived in Morris County there was an obscure local politician named Chris Christie who was always making noise about runing for some kind of office; free...holder, assembly, even state senate, anything. John Dorsey, the GOP incumbent state senator, was vulnerable and everybody knew it. I recall reading at the time Christie wanted to primary Dorsey but couldn't get enough signatures for the ballot so he offered to run as a Democrat. The Democrats had no use for him either, and instead handed their nomination to Gordon MacInnes, who went on to defeat John Dorsey. Four years later, unfortunately, MacInnes was defeated by the current occupant, state senator Tony Bucco. For the last three years I've been trying to find links to a source to verify my story and I finally found one on PolitickerNJ. Although the article is about GOP primaries in general, it specifically references Christie's attempt to run as a Democrat. Check it out:

Never Finding Etan Patz

Rosi Efthim — Thu, 24 May 2012 19:15:53 GMT

When I was 16, I walked into a shopping mall outside Detroit through a door near one of the anchor stores: Hudson's. There was a woman in a gaudy necklace and a couple making out on a bench. But after I took them in, something about a man coming out of the store with a kid took my attention. It was the look on the kids face: frozen.

The man wasn't walking fast at all, but he swung the kid, about 4 or 5 years old, into his arms. And the boy's legs didn't wrap around the man. As they would any father, any uncle, any brother, any friend.

I don't know why I did this, but as they got near my door, I asked the kid if he was okay. I was a pretty shy teenager, but I said this very loudly, because I wanted to attract attention. The couple on the bench. The lady in the necklace.

The next few minutes were a blur.
The man was aggressive: mind your business. A guy coming in instinctively blocked the door. And I started to shout. People came running. The man dropped the kid on the hard floor. He didn't cry, he ran to me. Security guards came. The man shouted he was a cousin. He wasn't. He picked up a potted plant and threw it at a woman. Then he was tackled. Mall was shut down; nobody in, nobody out. The boy's sister came running out of the store, screaming his name. Scottie. My age. She'd lost him because the music section was near the toys.

Stores in those days didn't drill procedures for missing kids. Malls didn't have structure-wide announcement systems. Amber Alerts? No. The man who had the boy was a pedophile. This was his first abduction.

Years later, when I was a student at NYU a mom just south of our school's neighborhood stood on her fire escape and watched her 6-year-old go to school. Etan Patz. All he had to do is walk down Prince St., and go around the corner onto Broadway and the bus. It was the first time he'd ever been allowed to go by himself. The last time anybody saw him.

NYU mobilized a vast turnout of students to join the search, putting up flyers, doorknocking, had somebody seen anything? Whole neighborhood was out.

Etan's disappearance was the beginning of everything in raising the profile on missing kids. Reagan named May 25 - the day he disappeared - National Missing Children's Day. That's tomorrow. Etan went missing 33 years ago, tomorrow. Missing kids' faces on milk cartons; he was the first. Writer John Podhoretz calls it "the story that changed urban childhood".

Brings us to now. Over the last few hours a man in Maple Shade, NJ confessed to strangling Etan, putting him into a box, and leaving it somewhere in Manhattan. Whereabouts of the box, and the body, are unknown.

Etan was neighborhood for me. But the rate at which we lose kids - from violence, to predators of their young bodies, to self-appointed neighborhood watchers scouting for unarmed teenagers wearing hoodies and carrying Skittles, is staggering. The best thing I ever knew about Hillary Clinton was her popularizing the saying, It takes a village to raise a child, a saying that comes from Zimbabwe, where my grandmother grew up and children were watched communally by eagle-eyed women who were also working. We don't do that here, not much, not until a little blond child goes missing. And those of us living safely in our suburban bubbles don't give much thought to the children we lose every day to poverty, and to the opportunistic epidemics of poverty; addiction, violence, incarceration, malnutrition and untreated illness, and lowered hope. I am blown away by the figure that, in 2010 figures, 300,000 NJ kids live below the poverty line. If I feel overwhelmed by a number like that, I do, imagine how overwhelmed families living it are. Maybe some people reading this. I know the solutions are not to address tragedy only with individualized solutions, or only with charity. I know tax cuts and favors to millionaires tie our hands and make our priorities evident. So does consigning precious education to tycoons eyeing children to make a buck. And I know to be on the side of the good guys. That's all I know.

I've been reliving Etan's disappearance all day, and the sneaker army of NYU students ditching class, sure we'd have that moment of jubilation, of finding. Four years after Etan, Hollywood made a movie but they changed the ending. Just before the closing credits, he's found and reunited with his mother on the street where he disappeared. It's what we wanted for Julie Patz, and what we believed - I can't believe the world was ever that young - we'd see. And I'm remembering the boy in the mall outside Detroit, the man's face when he dropped him and tried to rush the guy at the door. And the sister running toward Scottie with her arms out.

She got her boy back. Julie Patz never will.

The Day Mary Pat Angelini's Head Explodes

Jay Lassiter — Thu, 24 May 2012 13:37:50 GMT

Assemblywoman Mary Pat Angelini will have a meltdown on the chamber floor today. Mark my words. Look for the sort of spectacle only Nancy Reagan would love.

It'll probably happen around 4pm during the Assembly debate (and vote) to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana in the Garden State. Most of Angelini's Assembly colleagues will vote to pass the bill, thus striking a blow against the failed, costly, dangerous "War on Drugs."The bill might even pass the lower house with a veto-proof majority.

But look for Mary Pat to show us that Reefer Madness is still very much alive in New Jersey. I'll be tuning in just to hear how crazy she sounds because, frankly, it amuses me to hear her make a fool out of herself. And her track record suggests nothing less. Consider the following:

Mary Pat Angelini didn't simply vote against medical marijuana. She gave an insane-sounding, desperate plea to everyone on the chamber floor to do the same. Her reasoning? Allowing cancer patients access to medically-administered cannabis would directly result in upper middle class white kids becoming addicted to crack, heroine and crystal meth.

In Mary Pat's mind, medical marijuana is the gateway to society's ruin. She said so. In front of a lot of people wearing incredulous looks, self included. I could barely believe my ears listening to her woefully ill-informed conclusions about medical marijuana and the patients who are (literally) dying to use it.

Assemblywoman Angelini's hurtful comments equating a hospice nurse to a dope dealer drew gasps from the crowd. And her spiteful, mean-spirited characterization of people who use medical cannabis won't be forgotten. Not as long as I'm around.

The bill ultimately sailed by a vote of 48-14 with the most compelling arguments for passage coming from Angelini's fellow Republicans. It would mark the beginning of a pattern where Angelini was a minority within a minority on Drug Policy issues.

Mary Pat Angelini voted against a needle exchange program in New Jersey. Never mind needle-exchange is PROVEN to reduce HIV/AIDS/Hepatitis transmission rates, her so-called rationale for the NO vote was a familiar one: access to clean needles for drug addicts sends a message that society condones IV drug use. Which is about as stupid and dangerous as a doctor saying to a grieving mother, "I'm sorry about your dead son. I couldn't treat him when he overdosed on drugs. Wouldn't want to send the wrong message to society, now would I?"

Utter nonsense. Last I checked Mary Pat Angelini is neither scientist nor doctor. But she DOES represent Asbury Park, which has one of the highest HIV transmission rates in the state. With hysterical lawmakers like Mary Pat Angelini making policy in Trenton, it's easy to see why.

Follow me below the fold where I reveal what's animating Assemblywoman Angelini's modern brand of Reefer Madness....
Hard to know what experiences have driven Mary Pat Angelini to adopt such poorly-reasoned, unscientific positions (that are out of the mainstream even by GOP standards.) Maybe she truly believes what she's saying.

Commercial considerations?

It's bitterly ironic that Mary Pat Angelini is also executive director of a drug treatment center. So it's not inplausable to suggest that her view on drugs is colored by her own financial interests. (More addicts, more customers type thing.)

I've been through drug rehab personally. And I'm proud to say I've been crystal meth-free for nearly a decade. I have a 100% track record of getting people off drugs. And I fear for any addict/alcoholic who's seeking recovery from anyone so out-of-step with science and reality as Mary Pat Angelini. It takes more than prayer and propaganda to get people off drugs. Trust me. I should know.

So if you're bored this afternoon, tune into the live feed listen to the debate for yourself. The session begins at 1pm but the drama usually comes towards the end. The Assembly will be voting on Increasing Minimum Wage, Reforming NY/NJ Port Authority, Teen Tanning Bed Ban regs , Social Media Privacy Protections & Voiding Christie Anti-Environment Rules. It promises to be juicy.

But I guarantee the high/low point of the day will be Mary Pat Angelini's doomsday warnings which will surely precede her vote to ratify the costly, dangerous, ineffective and FAILED "War on Drugs." I predict her screed goes off at exactly 3:47pm EST in Trenton. Thankfully she'll be in the minority on this one.

Sweeney Pension Reform Prevented Christie Raid

firstamend07 — Thu, 24 May 2012 09:43:44 GMT

AS the battle over what is to be cut and where is the money to be borrowed from just begins,so that Christie can give his "sound bite" tax cut,did anyone besides me notice what was NOT mentioned?

In the past when times were tough both Democratic and Republican Governors would simply decide to not pay into the pension fund anymore.

Why did Christie decide to borrow from the transportation fund and also to cut salary increases to non-union workers instead?

Simple. The Sweeney Pension reform Bill makes him BY LAW pay into the pension fund!

Does anyone think that Christie would not love to go after that money.

So all the Big mouths from CWA leadership and all the sheep who listen to them as the sole " source "of the truth should call Sweeney today for passing Pension Reform and saving their pension fund from another raid.

Candidate Suppression in Bergen (Again)

carolh — Thu, 24 May 2012 04:53:30 GMT

The other night I was watching MSNBC and I was struck watching Civil Rights icon and Georgia Congressman John Lewis use all his considerable credibility and emotional weight to shame a fellow Republican into withdrawing an amendment from the floor that would have suppressed voting rights.

I felt that old familiar anger rise up in me. I feel it whenever I see yet another blatant attack on voting rights. It reminds me of when someone tried to do it to me. When I was a duly elected County Committee member and I was almost prevented from casting a vote for NJ Asssembly candidate Valerie Vaineiri Huttle by a Bergen County Committee Staffer who dared challenge me. I was angry because that Republican Senator tried to once again steal another election from thousands upon thousands of US citizens.

Thankfully, John Lewis reminded that Senator that he knew friends who had DIED trying to vote. He had his own blood spilled himself. That shamed the would-be Republican election thief into withdrawing his abomination of an amendment. I remember how angry I was that someone had tried to steal my vote away from me. I remembered how I felt knowing that Elizabeth Cady Stanton had lived in my town of Tenafly and had tried to vote right there in the center of my town. I remembered how much that very anger drove me to become a blogger right here on Blue Jersey. I fought that day in Hackensack, I got there first in line and stayed to be a witness, and even shouted to get not only my vote counted, but the votes counted of all the African American County Committee members in Teaneck - who I watched being challenged the minute they walked in the door. Our uproar prevented another stolen election. That is how the BCDO used to operate - which is why they changed the name to BCDC in the hopes folks would forget that although they changed the Captain - the same crew is still running the ship.

I am extremely unhappy to report that the reason I feel that old familiar anger boiling up inside me today is that the BCDC apparently actively prevented candidate Jason Castle from participating in the Bergen County Committee Convention. I received a letter today that was sent to the Chairman Lou Stellato and the entire CD5 membership of the County Committee that describes the underhanded way in which the nomination was just handed to FOJ (Friend of Joe) Adam Gussen of Teaneck.

I will include the text of it here:

REGINA DUNPHY O'NEILL
MAY 22, 2012
Chairman Lou Stellato
BCDC
Dear Chairman:
Jason Castle is my choice for Congress in District 5. To say I'm impressed with him is to put it mildly. His positions on the Afghan war, Marriage Equality, and education are a perfect contrast to Scott Garret's record. In addition, Jason is a former Marine who served our country in Iraq. Jason is a great candidate; he makes the Bergen Dems look good!
In my opinion your hand-picked candidate, Adam Gussen is a very poor choice for our party. I have seen this guy in action. He acts like a bully, especially towards women. He makes Chris Christie look like a pussy cat. As far as his positions concerning the voters, he did not show up for the first debate and he has no website. So who knows!
I am not surprised that you manipulated the democratic process with your decision to keep Jason out of the convention. It's very similar to the way you ran the legislative caucuses last year. Some of the legislative candidates were required to adhere to the convention process and your hand picked candidates got a pass on that process.
I believe you purposely held back the delegate list from Mr. Castle until 3 days before the convention knowing he needed it to get his petition signed by those same delegates.
He completed the requirements to run at the convention. When he called to say he was going to drop off the signed petition at headquarters he was told to bring them to Ron's house the next day. Jason reminded Ron that that would be past the deadline; Ron insisted it was not a problem.
On Sunday I hosted a meet and greet for Jason. A great success; Jason was able to win over all those in attendance. Some of my guests had received an e-mail discouraging them from supporting Jason because he didn't go thru the convention process; a "fact" that had been confirmed by none other than the BCDC. "Your people" in Maywood and throughout Dist. 5 are busily spreading around your party line.
Nice try Lou! First you stomp all over the democratic process and then you get your "party puppets" to convince the voters that the candidates you blackballed did something wrong. I don't think it will work this time.
Lou, you do understand that these corrupt policies take away the rights of all county committee people! In turn, your decision disenfranchised thousands upon thousands of voters represented by those same county committee members. It is their responsibility to research the candidates and then vote for the candidate who will best serve their constituents.
In the past, Joe Ferriero desecrated the democratic process over and over again. And know I see you are doing the same thing. I'll ask you the same question I asked Joe; what are you afraid of?
As for Jason Castle, I'm not worried. I believe he has the courage and integrity to move our party forward.
Sincerely,
Regina Dunphy O'neill
CC: DIST 5 COUNTY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Now in order to understand what happened, you need to know why the old Ferriero supporters would want to rig the election in favor of Adam Gussen. Adam was a candidate supported by Joe Ferriero to weaken Loretta Weinberg's supporters in Teaneck.
Here is an old diary I did on THAT topic:

http://www.bluejersey.com/diar...

From the following link, you can get the gist of the Zisa, Ferreiro connections to Adam Gussen's campaign and career in what is supposed to be a non-partisan Teaneck.

http://teaneckprogress.blogspo...

I know it is a few years later, but the same characters are still in power at the BCDC - like the BCDC staffer and Joe Ferriero supporter Ron Subramaniam who told Mr. Castle to hand his papers in a day late even though he had them ready in time. It is an ugly ugly political scene in Teaneck these days, and the efforts to prevent Castle from participating in the convention stole the votes of hundreds of County Committee members who wanted to vote for Mr. Castle. They are angry. My other BCDC sources tell me that not only did the BCDC withhold the list until only 3 days before the deadline, but when Castle's campaign got the list - it had no phone numbers on it. They had to literally look up hundreds of phone numbers themselves to get those signatures in time. Which they managed to do only to be prevented from delivering them by BCDC staffer Subramaniam.

In one sweet bit of poetic justic, Jason Castle still won the first column in Bergen County, and also won the party line in Counties where he was not PREVENTED from being on the ballot. Because of that, the BCDC folks who prevented a fair election at the Bergen County Committee are trying to intimidate County Committee members from openly showing their support for Jason Castle. I have already had to refute misinformation being spread to Democrats in Teaneck by Gussen's allies.

I was asked to blog this by County Committee members infuriated by being deprived of their voting rights and afraid to speak out publicly about this terrible systemic cancer still embedded inside the BCDC. That anger I feel is shared by at least 100 county committee members who dared to sign Jason's petition in good faith. I wonder if those County Committee members will find THEMSELVES thrown off the line in the next election like I was a few years back for daring to support, the HONEST candidate and now our Senate Majority Leader, Loretta Weinberg, rather than the recently convicted and hand-picked Ferriero candidate named (Charles "Ken" Zisa). I think there should be a full investigation into candidate suppression and the alleged illegal rigging of the 2012 Bergen County Democratic Committee Convention. God knows it wouldn't be the first time the Bergen County Democratic Committee forgot how to hold an honest election.

I Blame Reed Gusciora for the LD16 Primary Election Bitterness

Bertin Lefkovic — Wed, 23 May 2012 16:06:05 GMT

Far too many people have bought in to the talking point that Steve Rothman should have run against Scott Garrett even though the bulk of what was the district that he represented still remains in the district where he chose to run. Conversely, Reed Gusciora has been associated with Princeton for as long as he has been involved in politics, yet when he had the opportunity to move up to the State Senate and take on Kip Bateman, the man who now on two occasions has betrayed and insulted the LGBT community with his statements and votes on marriage equality, he cut and ran to Trenton where his re-election to the State Assembly would be guaranteed, but would also block the ascendancy of another good progressive, Dave DelVecchio of Lambertville, and prevent the Hunterdon County part of LD15 from getting the representation that it rightly deserves.

Considering the narrow margin of loss in LD16, there is no doubt in my mind that if Gusciora had summoned up the guts, which so many people, who were silent at this same time, feel Rothman lacked when he made a similar, but far different decision, to take on Bateman, the entire LD16 team would have won last year. That said, I do think that while most of the total voters in LD16 are in Hunterdon and Somerset Counties, the additions of Princeton and South Brunswick to this district are undoubtedly what have changed it from a safe Republican district to the competitive district that it has become.

Does this mean that the Democratic nomination should have been handed to Sue Nemeth on a silver platter? Of course not. I am a staunch advocate for seriously contested primary elections, but the negative tone of this race, which I attribute mostly, although not completely, to Nemeth has been destructive rather than constructive. Considering how close Democrats came to winning in LD16 in 2011, I think that the Democratic leadership in the district should have been more strategic in terms of how they approached this election and how it could propel the entire team to victory in 2013. At the very least, I think that some very important questions should have been asked of both Corfield and Nemeth.
First and foremost of them is whether or not either would be willing to commit to running against Kip Bateman in 2013 if she won the Assembly seat this year. I think that this is an important question to be asked and have answered, primarily because I think that neither Corfield nor Nemeth were particularly forward-thinking in terms of their approach to this district. Once Reed Gusciora passed on running for State Senate as well as running in the district altogether, I think that Corfield, being the most high-profile of the three Democrats who ran last year, should have been the State Senate candidate. I understand that this was her first time running for elected office and there may have also been some organizational issues that led to her running for the office that she did, but the hubris that drives someone to believe that they should be an elected official is often what drives them to victory and while it was good that she ran, I think that it would have been better if she had run for State Senate. At the same time, Nemeth did not even run at all last year, which leads me to believe that she did not think that anyone could win in this district until the LD16 team came as close as they did to winning.

Based on the little that I have read about this race, I do not get the sense that Corfield and Nemeth have substantive differences when it comes to policymaking, which is good insofar as I think that either would vote progressively if elected, but not as good as the lack of ideological differences has caused the discourse to devolve into petty, personality-centric bickering.

Someone should have done an analysis of the voting patterns in the towns in this district, comparing the results from 2003, 2007, and 2011 to determine whether or not the lack of a candidate from Princeton had an impact on turnout AND how much the competitiveness of the new district impacted turnout in the towns that had been part of LD16 for the last decade. I can only guess, but I think that a Princeton candidate is more likely to drive turnout in Princeton than a non-Princeton candidate AND the competitiveness of the district as a whole is likely to drive turnout throughout the entire district.

Considering the fact that Rush Holt being on the ballot should drive Princeton's turnout sufficiently this year, I think that a deal probably should have been struck at the beginning of this race that would have allowed Corfield to be the Democratic candidate in the State Assembly special election this year and guaranteed Nemeth her choice of running for either State Assembly or State Senate next year. If Corfield won the Assembly seat this year and Nemeth chose to run against Bateman, Corfield would run for re-election to the Assembly. If Nemeth chose to run for the Assembly, Corfield would run against Bateman. Obviously, this solution to this problem wouldn't have solved the South Brunswick vs Somerset County problem, but that could have been tabled for another cycle.

Either way, I think that Democrats in all four counties will be able to come together after this race is over. In the grand scheme of things, it might wind up being good that this race shook out the way that it did, even with the bitterness, as the election results will probably give us some useful data about the relative strength of the Princeton Democrats compared to rest of the district. If Nemeth wins by any margin or loses by a narrow margin, it will be because of high turnout and an ultra-wide margin of victory in Princeton or because of low turnout and narrower-than-expected margins in the other three counties.

That said, I predict that Corfield wins on June 5 by somewhere between six and nine percentage points.

Christie's reckless tax cut and the Democratic minority

jackstanton — Wed, 23 May 2012 15:57:36 GMT

The Star Ledger is out with their most recent "blame both sides" for New Jersey's economic mess editorial. It is a powerful piece that attacks Governor Christie's tax-cut for "magical thinking," and it argues that "the "New Jersey Comeback" the governor keeps talking about is pure fiction."

But when the editorial tries to balance these criticisms of the Governor by blaming Democrats for lacking the "guts to tell the truth," it misses the mark. Democrats are not by any means the blameless victims of Governor Christie's policies; rather, the Democrats in the legislature are the minority party. That's right, the Democrats in the legislature are the minority party and this needs to be reflected in our public discourse.

Leading up to last year's legislative elections, when polled, voters consistently said that one of their main priorities in electing a Democratic majority in the legislature was to off-set the Governor. New Jersey voters were rightly afraid of an "Imperial Governor" and they sought to use their vote to reinforce a checks-and-balances system. Despite the Democratic Party "officially" holding on to their legislative "majority," voters in New Jersey unwittingly ended up with a Republican controlled legislature. By colluding with Sweeney, Norcross and Co., Christie managed to achieve politically what he could not achieve at the ballot box: a submissive legislature that is unwilling to stop his reckless and politically motivated agenda.

We are therefore stuck with another blow to the economic health of our state in the form of this new tax cut. By any measure, it is a reckless move by a Governor positioning himself nationally and preparing himself for a potential reelection campaign. It is another poor attempt at trickle down economics, a "dogma that won't die no matter how many times it fails to deliver." While the richest few might reap the rewards of the tax cut, the middle class in New Jersey will look back on it in a few years and say, "The rich enjoyed the excesses of the present at the expense of our children's future."

I am not an ideological purist. I believe that "moderates" should have a warm place in the Democratic Party; but Sweeney and Co. are not making political concessions based on their principles or their political beliefs. Nor are they making concessions based on logic or a well reasoned argument by the Governor. As exemplified in the tax cut, they are making cold and calculated decisions to allow Governor Christie to rule the state imperially. In the process they and their political boss/benefactor reap the rewards of complicity.

The Ledger was right to blame us Democrats. We have showed a lack of guts. Not only on the tax cut, but in not taking a stronger and more vocal stand against the members of our own party that have relegated us to the minority position in New Jersey. This is what we need the Ledger and others to understand: the current political discourse is a farce. The Democrats in the legislature are in the minority, and they are currently powerless to check our Imperial Governor.

A Relevant Divergance

War Horse — Wed, 23 May 2012 15:48:55 GMT

Cross Posted from Retire Garrett

Tonight Congressmen Steve Rothman and Bill Pascrell are participating in what will likely be their last debate before the June 5th primary. The primary will determine which of these two sitting Members of Congress will be the Democratic nominee for the 9th Congressional District. The debate will take place at 7:30 PM in Teaneck at the Ethical Culture Society and is hosted by Bergen Grassroots and the Ethical Culture Society.

You can still watch the debate even if you are not able to be in attendance. News12 will be covering the event live and in its entirety. If you are not a Cablevision subscriber AND Cablevision is not available in your area, you can watch the debate online at www.news12.com.

For those of us in the 5th District, I can tell you with certainty that there is reason for you to watch this debate. I can't give you the particulars, but I can say it will be more relevant than one Congressman chastising the other for not choosing to challenge Scott Garrett in the 5th District.

If you miss the debate, fear not. I will be in attendance and will report back to you tomorrow.

If Sweeney Did What Booker Did.

firstamend07 — Mon, 21 May 2012 22:46:14 GMT

A friendly video with the Governor.

Absolute,100% pro-voucher.

A complete and purposeful attack on the Obama campaign.

Can you imagine the attacks on Sweeney if he did such things!

But it appears the Progressives are very reluctant to go after the saboteur Corey Booker.

Why is that?

Would the Progressives on this site have " moderated" their opinions if Sweeney had done the same thing? I doubt it.

Why is Booker teflon ?

Maybe it is time for many of you " progressives" to reevaluate your viewpoints.

Take personalities and geography out of the equation and look at what people do.

Sweeney would never trash Obama.
Sweeney would never sell out the whole education system.
Sweeney would never make a self serving video of himself.

Ask yourself ,would you rather have Booker as your " friend" or Sweeney?

Are Progressives allowed to criticize Booker or is he untouchable?

I have a feeling that the silence will be deafening regarding Booker.

Pants on fire?

Domenick Stampone — Mon, 21 May 2012 15:35:23 GMT

When Steve Rothman decided to move into the new 9th Congressional District to challenge Congressman Bill Pascrell, most political observers knew things would get nasty. But no one knew the Rothman camp would resort to outright lies. PolitiFact even went so far as give the Rothman campaign a "pants on fire" ruling for an outrageous distortion of Pascrell's record on taxes. Rothman will do and say whatever it costs to keep his seat in Congress - even if that means lying.

Voters aren't going to be tricked into believing the lies coming from Rothman and his campaign. Bill Pascrell has a strong record fighting for core Democratic values, protecting the middle class, and pushing back against Tea Party extremists. Bill Pascrell didn't run from the fight against the Tea Party, Steve Rothman did when he packed up and moved away from the fight against Scott Garrett in order to take on a Democrat. The Star Ledger summed it up best: Rothman's cheap shots are tarnishing his record. Last week on The Brian Lehrer Show a former Rothman supporter expressed her frustrations, stating: "when it got cleared up, and I found out was really a kind of dirty politics the way he was saying these things about Pascrell, and each one can be explained, I'm voting for Pascrell." We need Bill Pascrell in Congress fighting for us like he has his whole career.

Watch for yourself and don't believe the lies coming from Rothman's campaign:

April Jobs Numbers: Despite Slight Job Gains, NJ Has 5th Highest Jobless Rate of 50 States

njppwhiten — Mon, 21 May 2012 14:23:35 GMT

Cross-posted at NJPP.org

New Jersey added 2,600 jobs in April, not enough to wipe out the declines in March, and the state's unemployment rate ticked up by a percentage point, to 9.1 percent - the highest it's been since December, state labor officials announced last week.

The increase in the jobless rate pushes New Jersey into dubious company, as it joins Nevada, Rhode Island, California and North Carolina as the states with the five highest unemployment rates in the U.S. (the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico also had higher rates). The Garden State was also one of only five states to see its rate bump up in April, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
While New Jersey did have a higher unemployment rate when Gov. Christie took office in early 2010, it was nowhere near the top of the heap. Its January 2010 rate of 9.7 percent was the 19th highest of the 50 states.

Since then, New Jersey's recovery has lagged most states, pushing it into outlier territory, with an unemployment rate that's now a full point higher than the national rate of 8.1 percent and even higher than the Northeast regional rate of 7.9 percent.

Administration officials continue to point to positive "longer-term employment trend(s)" and "continuing job growth" in news releases, and any job growth at this point should be considered good news. But it's important to keep that news in perspective.

Adding 39,000 jobs a year, as we're doing now, won't even get New Jersey back to pre-recession employment levels, an analysis done by the Economic Policy Institute shows.

Put another way, New Jersey has 196,000 fewer jobs than it did when the recession officially began in December 2007. To offset those losses, keep up with the state's 3.8 percent population growth and bridge the overall "jobs deficit," New Jersey would need to be adding 12,000 jobs a month, or nearly 150,000 a year.

Where Should Lautenberg and Menendez Take Gillibrand and Schumer For Pizza When the Devils Win?

Bertin Lefkovic — Sun, 20 May 2012 14:27:51 GMT

Let me preface this diary by saying that I think that hockey is the second least watchable sport known to humankind with soccer being the least watchable, but being a gambler at heart, my interest was piqued by a PolitckerNJ Back Room story about a bet that New Jersey's and New York's Senators have made over the outcome of the Devils-Rangers series.

The bet is a slice of pizza purchased by the loser on the winner's home turf.
"@ChuckSchumer @SenGillibrand, I'll ask @FrankLautenberg, but I think we both like pepperoni on our pizza #LetsGoDevils#StanleyCupToNewark," read a Tweet from U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, (D-NJ)
"My bet w/Gillibrand, Lautenberg & Menendez: when Rangers win they buy us Grimaldi's. If Devils win, we buy some NJ 'Pizza'. Go Rangers!," said a Tweet from U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

While I could not care less who wins the series, I do like pizza and can speak from experience that Grimaldi's in Brooklyn Heights has the best pizza that I have ever eaten in my lifetime. Lombardi's in Little Italy is a close second. Interestingly enough, Wooster Street in Wallingford, CT is a close third.

And while the pizza that I have eaten in New Jersey is often as good as anything that I have eaten in New York (aside from the aforementioned Grimaldi's and Lombardi's), I have never found a pizzaria here that stands out to the degree that these places do.

Would anybody care to educate me and Senators Lautenberg and Menendez so that they know where they should take Senators Gillibrand and Schumer for pizza when the Devils win?

My best guess would be Mario's Pizza in Clifton, simply because that is where so many politically-oriented pizza parties take place. The only other place that I have been to for political events is the Sun Tavern in Fanwood, NJ and between the two of them, Mario's Pizza is far better.

Does anybody have any better ideas? If so, please share them in the comments? If we get enough good ideas, I will write another diary with a poll in it so that we can vote on NJ's best pizza.

Norcrossippi Runs New Jersey Just Like Idaho Runs The United States

Bertin Lefkovic — Sat, 19 May 2012 17:44:13 GMT

In his preface to promoting jackstanton's diary, "When does the bullshit stop?," deciminyan asks the following:

With the Christiecrat wing of the Democratic Party taking power in Trenton, are we headed toward one-party government?"

The problem with this question is the tense is all wrong and the label is even more wrong. We have one-party government, because the Norcrosscrat wing of the Democratic Party took power in Trenton before Chris Christie was elected Governor and it is my belief that they suppressed the Corzine vote where they had the power to do so in order to help Christie beat Corzine.

Why did the Norcrosscrats prefer Christie to Corzine? During the eight years of McGreevey, Codey, and Corzine, George Norcross was one of many political bosses of one of many political machines in the state and even though he controlled more Assemblypersons and Senators than any one boss, the bosses in North and Central Jersey were closely aligned enough to keep him in check.

But during this time, U.S. Attorney Chris Christie successfully indicted and convicted a number of these bosses, dramatically reducing the amount of control that they had over electeds and other party leaders in their fiefdoms. Interestingly enough, despite being the most corrupt of the bunch, Norcross underwent the least amount of scrutiny of any of them and was able to increase his power and reach into other parts of the state as a result.

This chain of events led to the coup that overthrew Dick Codey as Senate President and passed over then-Assembly Majority Leader Bonnie Watson Coleman and installed Steve Sweeney as Senate President and Sheila Oliver as Assembly Speaker. Despite the best efforts of people like Codey, former Assembly Majority Leader, and former Senate Majority Leader, Barbara Buono to take the Assembly and Senate back from the Norcrosscrats, as long as Norcross has his bloc of 6 Senators and 12 Assemblypersons and is able to play the North and Central Jersey political machines against one another, keeping them divided and weak, Norcrossippi is going to run New Jersey.
But even more important than unifying the North and Central Jersey political machines against Norcross is defeating Christie in 2013. It is not a coincidence that Norcross was able to avoid the indictments and convictions that slayed his corrupt fellow bosses and take control of the Assembly and Senate at the same time that Christie became Governor. They came to power together and they depend on each other to retain the power that they have. Removing Norcross from his position of ultimate power is going to take generations of progressive activism that the progressive activists in Norcrossippi are either unwilling or unable to undertake.

Jay Lassiter has worked for Norcrosscrats on numerous occasions and has written in positive terms about the North-South divide, going fo far as to tell those of us who do not live in Norcrossippi to "work our own side of the street". Deciminyan has written that he prefers Norcrosscrats to Republicans, which is a reasonable position to take, but it ignores the fact that the huge bloc of Democratic Assemblypersons and Senators is the key to the control that he has over the entire state.

If the electeds in LD1, LD3, and LD4 were defeated by Republicans in 2013, Democrats would still have majorities in the Assembly and Senate, but the amount of power that Norcross will have will be dramatically reduced to the point that by 2017, progressives could challenge and replace James Beach and Donald Norcross with progressives and Herb Conaway, Troy Singleton, Jim Whelan, and the Assemblypersons in LD5 and LD6 would be free to be the progressives that they truly are. But even more important than any of this is defeating Christie in 2013. The power that a Democratic Governor would possess would be enough to contain the power and reach of Norcrossippi.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that Norcross and his acolytes will allow a Democrat to defeat Christie in 2013 and the only other way to get rid of him is to elect Mitt Romney President and that would be akin to cutting off our head to spite a zit on our nose. It would be much better to just pop the zit.

JCpolitico makes an interesting comment in this diary as well.

Wait, so all of a sudden Loretta Weinberg is the only real Dem in power even though she had no qualms about making a deal with Sweeney to push Bouno out as Majority Leader. Come on. I just don't get how South Jersey wields so much power despite having the least population and being essentially the least relevant region of the state. That's like letting members of congress from Idaho run the country for us.

First and foremost, Loretta Weinberg can do far more good on the inside of this notorious power structure than she can on the outside. Both Barbara Buono and Joe Cryan knew this when they were part of the original coup that ousted Dick Codey and passed over Bonnie Watson Coleman. But the power structure that Christie and Norcross have built for themselves is not unlike the dysfunctional system in Washington where Idaho may not run the country, but by virtue of the power of the United States Senate and the hyperutilization of the filibuster, it and other low-population states like it have an inordinate amount of power.

I was looking at the Washington Post's interactive electoral map the other day and after seeing, despite the fact that New Jersey is losing a congressional seat, how many states have fewer seats than we do, I realized how broken our country's political system, particularly our Senate, truly is. Only nine (California, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and New York) states have more congressional seats, while the remaining forty all have less, and in most cases, far less.

Am I the only person here who thinks that it is insane that Alaska has the same representation in the Senate as we do, despite having a dramatically lower population? Say what you will about Chris Christie. He might be evil, but he is neither batshitcrazy nor a bloomin' idiot like Sarah Palin, who had no business being elected Mayor of Wasilla, the crystal meth capital of Alaska, much less Governor, much less being nominated Vice-President. The fact that a chain of events like this was able to occur is proof positive about how broken our democracy truly is.

In my opinion, the Constitution has to be amended to modify the number of Senators that each state sends to Washington. Understanding the history of the Connecticut Compromise, I think that there does need to be some differentiation in the Senate's representation. I think that the fairest approach to balancing the importance of original intent with the needs of the present would be to allocate one Senator to every state with 1-9 Congresspersons, two Senators to every state with 10-19 Congresspersons, and, continuing along this model, three Senators to New York, four Senators to Texas, and six Senators to California.

Obviously, it would be impossible to pass a constitutional amendment that would take away a Senator from 4/5 of the states in the country, but in my opinion, that is the only way that we would be able to fix the problems caused by a system that has put as much power in the hands of the Idahoes of our country that our current system does. Filibuster reform or the nuclear option, eliminating the filibuster altogether, would in the grand scheme of things have a minimal impact on the problems facing our broken government in Washington.

In fact, when I think about the magnitude of the problem, it makes me feel a little better about our broken state government. Imagine how terrible it would be if each of our state's 21 counties were represented equally in the State Senate. Even with Norcrossippi and the Norcrosscrats behind him, Chris Christie is still beatable. And if we can beat him next year, whether Barack Obama wins or loses this November, I think that we need to start talking seriously about another way to fix our broken country, which is secession.

For the same reasons that I believe in a two-state or three-state (with Gaza and the Sinai becoming a separate state from both Egypt and Israel) solution to the problems that face the State of Israel and its Arab neighbors, I believe even more in a four-state solution to solving the problems of the Disunited States of America.

Our country would consist of everything North and East of Maryland and Pennsylvania with the District of Columbia becoming part of Maryland. As much as I would love to elect Howard Dean as our first President and make Burlington, VT our new nation's capital, I think that Waterbury, CT would probably make more sense as long as we could drive most of the crazy evangelicals out. Otherwise, we might have to settle for Danbury. Then again, maybe we should really think outside of the box and elect Loretta Weinberg as our first President and make Teaneck our new nation's capital.

As far as the other three states are concerned, California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington could be one country, and the rest of the former U.S. could be easily divided down the middle, following the line that starts between Minnesota and the Dakotas and ends between Louisiana and Texas. Or maybe our country and the western country that I have created can just become Canadian provinces. Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota can form their own province as well.

Whether we secede from Red America and become an independent country or pledge allegiance to the Canadian flag and to the republic for which it stands doesn't really matter. All I know is that regardless of the outcome of this November's Presidential election, the status quo is simply unsustainable.

Hamilton's Bencivengo - Updates

djkeelan — Fri, 18 May 2012 23:11:31 GMT

News on Mayor John Bencivengo's curruption charges, subpeona requests, local actions and costs to Hamilton Township related to his corruption charges.

Twitter - https://twitter.com/#!/Bencive...

Online Petition - http://www.change.org/petition...

You Can't have it Both Ways

War Horse — Fri, 18 May 2012 19:01:48 GMT

Cross Posted from Retire Garrett

Either Scott Garrett is in favor protecting taxpayers in the event a "Too Big to Fail" institution fails, or he isn't.

The Dodd-Frank legislation was enacted by Democrats. It was not as robust as many Democrats would have preferred, but it was a good start. It passed in the House by a vote of 232 - 202 without the support of a single Republican lawmaker.

During House debate, Garrett voted on several amendments to weaken the legislation. Since the final vote, he's advocated for legislation to weaken Dodd-Frank and for its outright repeal as well.

The Dodd-Frank Act puts a comprehensive new regulatory regime in place to deal with the problem of "too big to fail" financial institutions, including both banks such as JPMorgan Chase Inc. and Bank of America Inc., and large non-bank firms such as American International Group Inc. and Blackrock Inc., which are essentially firms that are so large or systemically important that their insolvencies would cause large amounts of economic and financial damage. The new law imposes "heightened risk oversight on large financial companies, including higher capital requirements, increased reporting and examination [and] resolution authority."
Wednesday, The Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit held a hearing entitled "The Impact of the Dodd-Frank Act: What It Means to be a Systemically Important Financial Institution (SIFI)." SIFI is another way to refer to a company that is "Too Big to Fail." At this hearing Scott Garrett made the following comments to panelist Lance Auer, the Treasury Department's deputy assistant secretary for financial institutions: "So let's be honest here, the entire debate about SIFI designation is nothing more than a charade. It's the debate about which financial institutions are too big to fail. And we should not be debating which companies to call too big to fail, we should be debating: how do we end the taxpayer being on the hook for these institutions?"

Forgive me for being shocked by this statement. After all, Mr. Garrett opposed Dodd-Frank every step of the way, advocates for its repeal, introduces legislation to weaken the law and has held hearings in an attempt to intimidate S.E.C. regulators into not promulgating regulations designed to protect investors but which also might prove burdensome to his Wall Street benefactors. And now he wants us to believe he's concerned that we the taxpayers will be on the hook should another of these SIFI's fail.

Before Dodd-Frank, if a SIFI failed - and they did, the American taxpayers were the ones to pay for the bailout. For a real-world example of such a bailout go to Google and type in the acronym, T.A.R.P. Dodd-Frank set a framework for classifying certain institutions as "Too Big to Fail." Thanks to Dodd-Frank, such institutions are now subject to higher capital reserve requirements and heightened levels of regulation. In addition, key provisions of the legislation will protect taxpayers from having to bailout such failures in the future. Christopher Matthews of Time Magazine wrote an excellent piece I encourage you to read which spells out the policies that were put in place to deal with such companies. Here are the key passages:

So how would the FDIC go about nursing one of the U.S.'s mammoth financial institutions through a crisis? First, the FDIC would put the firm's "holding company" into receivership. The holding company is the part of the firm that owns all the subsidiaries. Some of the nation's largest financial institutions own hundreds of subsidiaries, which are joined together by the holding company. Prior to Dodd-Frank, the FDIC had the power to resolve only federally insured banks and thrifts, and this was a crucial limitation when an investment bank like Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008. With the new authority provided by Dodd-Frank, the FDIC will now be able to put any failed financial institution into receivership.

According to [Acting-Chairman of the FDIC] Gruenberg, the strength of taking just the holding company into receivership is that the subsidiaries can function on their own, upholding financial contracts and providing services for their clients. This strategy will help avoid the falling domino effect of the 2008 financial crisis, where one large bank failure caused many other institutions to go down as well.

After the holding company is taken into receivership, the FDIC will transfer its assets into a new company, keeping those subsidiaries open that are solvent. Debt holders of the old company will become the owners of the new company, and shareholders will be wiped out. So all the stakeholders in the company can expect to suffer losses - just like in any normal bankruptcy proceeding.

To provide financing to keep this new bank going during the transition, the Dodd-Frank law set up an "Orderly Liquidation Fund" at the Treasury Department. Any losses to this fund must be "repaid from recoveries on the assets of the failed firm or from assessments against the largest, most complex financial institutions," said Gruenberg, adding that taxpayers will not be allowed to bear any loss from such a resolution.

Mr. Garrett, the legislation you've fought tooth-and-nail to defeat - and failing that to water-down, has provisions to protect taxpayers in the event a SIFI fails. Repealing Dodd-Frank means returning to a time not so long ago when the American taxpayer is expected to be the safety-net to protect our economy when Wall Street acts in a reckless manner. You can't now claim you wish to protect us, when you've already shown us you're more concerned with the health of Wall Street than Main Street. SIFI's present a real danger to the world's economy.

I understand it can be burdensome and costly for these behemoth institutions to be classified as a SIFI. This country can have a debate about how to define a SIFI and what additional rules and/or regulations need to be put in place to protect us in the event one of them fails in the future. But it would be criminal for our government to not learn the lessons of the recent past and allow such a scenario to unfold again. Your crocodile tears will not make us forget that you've opposed Dodd-Frank reforms from the outset.