Blue Jersey - Recent Diaries

Health Care Reform Update: Bio-Medical Research

Congressman Frank Pallone — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:45:35 GMT

I hope everyone at Blue Jersey is enjoying the Summer now that the rain has calmed down a bit. In Congress, we're working hard to craft real, meaningful health care reform legislation. I just wanted to assure my friends here in New Jersey that we're fighting to make sure any new law includes a public option. We need to expand the access and affordability of health insurance, and I want to make sure our legislation reflects these principles. A public option will help lower costs, give consumers more choice and create more competition in the marketplace.

Additionally, I wanted to bring your attention to an op-ed I penned last week for newjerseynewsroom.com concerning how health care will play a role in helping America move out of the current economic recession and the types of reforms we need:

We have to do more than spend money on healthcare; we need to invest in reforms that will improve the quality, expand the accessibility and lower the long-term costs of healthcare. One of the best areas for investments is biomedical research and development. By investing in biomedical innovation and research we are strengthening an industry that already leads the world in progress and influence, while at the same time ensuring the next generation of medical treatments and therapies.

By investing in biomedical research and development, we strengthen an industry in New Jersey that creates high-paying jobs and produces new medical techniques to improve our lives. Biotech is very important to our state's economy in so many different ways, and we must continue our investment in this important industry.
The National Institute of Health (NIH) is an important vehicle in spurring this economic activity for the biomedical industry. It is essential that we use funds and grants from the American Investment and Recovery Act for this biotechnology research entity.

In 2007, NIH grants and contracts created more than 350,000 jobs that generated $18 billion in salaries and wages. These figures will be larger for 2008 and for this year. These investments are providing economic activity at a time when it is desperately needed and will serve as a down payment on advanced biomedical research.

Health care reform is directly linked to moving New Jersey forward and out of the current economic recession. NIH grants will create jobs and push biomedical research to new frontiers. The change we voted for last November is starting to bring about real results in our policies and legislation, and I will continue to partner with President Obama to give Americans the option of buying into a public insurance program.

Again, I hope you're all enjoying your Summer. I also hope you'll follow me on Twitter and join my Facebook page. As always, I encourage everyone to visit my website and share your health care story. We need to show the human face of America's health care crisis and why we need real reform - especially to our colleagues in the U.S. Senate.

Who Are the 1 in 5 anti-Corzine Democrats?

firstamend07 — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:39:11 GMT

Quinnipiac today stated that 19% of Democrats plan on not voting for Corzine.

There is no way he can win unless he begins to " bring home" his own people.

I believe many are government workers who have been inundated with anti-Corzine propaganda by their union leaders over the past 5 months.

I also believe that the Democrats in the 5 Southern counties have a real disconnect with Corzine and are not supporting him.

Our small but very relevant " blue dog " faction is also not in his corner.

The big question is what does Corzine have to do to get these people back and stiil attract the Independents where he is getting hammered?

No sense going outside the house if your house is still not in the best shape.

CWA Continues to Hurt Corzine

firstamend07 — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:21:37 GMT

One of the most telling signs of why Corzine is losing in the Governors race is the fact that Quinnipiac today reveals that 19% , 1 in 5, of all Democrats do not plan on voting for him.

You can be assured that many, many of those 19% are CWA state workers and you can directly blame CWA leadership for that problem.

For 5 months this year those self centered , egotistical leaders rant and raved to their membership how Corzine was anti-union, anti-contract, anti-worker, ALL AT THE SAME TIME THAT CORZINE WAS TRYING TO WORK WITH THEM !

Five full months of Corzine bashing!

Then after the Governor gives them a gift on the renegotiation of the contract, and takes a LOT of political heat for it, what does the CWA leadership do in return? NOTHING!

After 5 months of dragging Corzines name in the mud they have not done a single thing to tell their membership how Corzine has helped them . No pro-Corzine mailings to try to offset all the negative previous mailings. Instead they continue to tell their membership what a great job THEY DID to make Corzine give in, like he was still the enemy.

On Thursday they will try to get on the stage with the President and the Governor and once again act like they are part of the Labor family.

They should be kicked out of the event!

These self centered, me first , phony laborleaders deserve a Chris Christie.

Blame a lot of that 19% on CWA.

MONEY?

mommyof8 — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:32:15 GMT

Is this all New Jersey cares about? I know times are beyond tite, but it is all you here about as an issue in campaigns the budget this or that. What about other issues? Do children in NJ mean nothing? I don't know now more than ever I feel as though trying for reform is a lost cause. Because now do people not only believe DYFS is a broken monster we could never fix, but now it would cost too much to even look at. The other day Nj 101.5 was interviewing Senators and congress men asking for our questions. The problem was the only ones they would allow were those on the budget. When I raised the question of DYFS reform the screener said well, it would cost too much anyway. So we just go on letting kids lives get flushed away because we are too concerned about money?

McCarthy and Shahdanian for District 39

johnconstantine — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:47:41 GMT

Cross-posted from RetireGarrett.com

Full Disclosure: I was just hired as a Field Organizer for Jon Corzine's Coordinated Campaign in Bergen County, which supports John Shahdanian and Mike McCarthy for Assembly in the 39th District.

New Jersey's 39th District Assembly races (which include these Bergen County towns) are typically blowouts. Republicans have held the district's two Assembly seats since 1977 despite Democrats' success in the rest of Bergen County. 2009 is going to be different though - Republican incumbent Charlotte Vandervalk and first-time candidate Robert Schroeder are being challenged by upstart Democrats John Shahdanian and Michael McCarthy.
Shahdanian says he's running in '09, "maybe because I'm stubborn"; it also might be his impressive resume. Born and raised in Old Tappan, Shahdanian is currently a partner at Secaucus law firm Chasan, Leyner & Lamparello. He devotes his practice to all aspects of civil rights and is a recognized expert on topics ranging from sexual harassment and racial discrimination to disability claims and whistleblowing. New Jersey Magazine named John a part of its "Super Lawyers" edition, which inludes only the top 5% of New Jersey lawyers and he was named one of New Jersey Monthly's "Rising Stars" in 2006, 2007, and 2008.

Mike McCarthy, meanwhile, has been a part of the New Jersey organized labor community for over 20 years. A resident of Dumont, McCarthy currently serves as New Jersey Legislative & Political Director for the International Alliance of Theatrical Stagehands Union (IATSE). Before entering into organized labor full time McCarthy managed the family owned insurance company while working nights and weekends as a union stagehand. His father John J. McCarthy is the Secretary of the New Jersey Senate-Emeritus.

Shahdanian believes District 39 needs representatives in the Assembly who will take a fresh look at ways to improve government. "The same politicians year in and year out are always reelected. It's just a matter of automatically pushing the button for people."

Republicans have irresponsibly represented District 39 for over 30 years. John Shahdanian and Mike McCarthy are going to change that. Shahdanian and McCarthy stand for accountability. They will address District 39's needs - needs that haven't been addressed for years, if ever. If you live in the 39th District, please consider them in November. If you are interested in helping their campaign, contact Mike at msimonson19@gmail.com.

Needing some help

mommyof8 — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:09:02 GMT

So what do I do. We all Know the Nj foster system stinks. What can I do to get the word out about how bad. How do I encourage reform. Every official I ever talked to(and I have talked with them all) agrees the DYFS system is broken. The problem is people think it is too big to fix. So our answer is to continue to ruine kids lives? There has to be a better answer. I know if I could put the spotlight on our story and others like it they would have to do something. So the question becomes how? What should I do? Anyone?

Reforming DYFS

mommyof8 — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:12:07 GMT

I am a foster and adoptive mom for the past eleven years now. I have seen things in the foster system that need to change before more kids die. No one will listen. I have written, called, e-mailed everyone who is in authority to make a change and no one will listen. I have written a book to get the story out, but had to publicise it myself so it is slow going. Iam at a loss as to what else can be done.

One of the things that has to change is the way they handle supervised visitation. The state of NJ is swamped. They have so many cases per worker they can't even visit them all. So they sub contract out their supervised visitation. The problem is the companies they contract to don't have to have any trained personnel. So you end up having a dangerous mom visiting a young child or infant in a public place monitored by a college intern. No back up if something goes wrong, no plan in effect to handle dangerous situations nothing.

Here is an example of one of these we had to deal with. We had a one year old we were fostering. His mother was too dangerous for the worker to transport. She was known to carry drugs and got violent. So they set the visits for places she could walk to. This visit was set at the Newark Library in Nj. We took the child and met a twenty one year old college intern who was sent to monitor the visit. I left my cell # and the child with the intern and went outside to wait for the visit to be over. Ten minutes later my cell rang. It was the intern crying and asking me to come get the baby. She said the mom was hitting him.

Now you have to understand the area is prodominately AA and my foster son was AA and of course so was the biological mom. Iam white. Anyway I go back inside and the mom is striking the baby with a book. The intern is crying and asking me to take the baby, she is afraid to as the mom is angry and out weighs us both by about 100lbs. I try to ge the baby back and the mom tucks the baby under her arms and proceeds to run up two flights of cement steps. I follow we get to the library doors and I manage to get hold of the baby before she makes it out. Now it is tug of war with her screaming that Iam trying to abduct her baby. I manage to tumble back in with the baby just before she runs out. All the while screaming Iam his foster mom. The mom jumps in a waiting car outside and drives off. She was going to abduct him. A month later we find out she is incarcerated for trafficking.

If I hadn't been there he would have been abducted. This happens everyday. The interns are not prepared, there is no safety plan in effect and no will help me. We ended up adopting that baby he is my son now. But this system is still endangering other kids. These visits need to be with trained personnel in secure settings. Help me make a difference.

http://search.barnesandnoble.c...

Why NJ Needs to Support Higher Education

princetonblue — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:02:46 GMT

I've been pointing out NJ's lack of support for higher education for some time now. Here's a recent news article that makes the case for why more support is needed now:

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.c...

Will any of the three candidates for Governor support higher education?

-pb

Stupid Parrot Question

denniscmcgrath — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:59:59 GMT

I just got an e-mail from the state Democratic committee - sadly, I don't have $50 to spend on a T-shirt supporting John Corzine. But I did check out their website. Pretty nice, lots of NJ-oriented images ... and then there is this:

http://www.njdems.org/images/b...

Okay, I give up. Are there parrots that are native to NJ?

Update: Well, I'll be ... there are parrots in Edgewater. Who knew?

http://www.nj.com/news/index.s...

Yes, I knew about the Brooklyn parrots, and even the parrots of Telegraph Hill, I just hadn't encountered the Edgewater Parrots as yet ...

One Reason Why Corzine Is Losing

princetonblue — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 04:56:46 GMT

Ok, now that I've got your attention, let me explain. One of the rules of politics is to consolidate your base. Polls show college faculty are one of the most liberal groups with about 90% of them Democrats. In NJ, most public college faculty (about 10,000 total is my estimate) are in the AFT union. So in a close election, you'd like to secure that base. Currently the state and the AFT are in negotiations to reach an contract modification (involving furloughs for example) in order to reach the budget savings required by the state budget. Given that AFT always follows the agreement that CWA negotiates, you would think that the state would offer the AFT the same agreement they just reached with the CWA.

For reasons only known to the political wizards in the Governor's campaign, their best offer to the AFT has been for a 20% greater pay-cut than for CWA (4.6% vs. 3.84%). And in addition, the granting of future paid vacation days as compensation for the furlough days (a gimmick I agree, but one given to CWA) has been eliminated.

Such offers contradict the language in the state budget bill, which calls for the same percentage of savings from college faculty as from other unions, not greater ones. Now the AFT is the smallest and weakest of the state unions, so the state apparently believes it can away with this approach. Personally I don't see the benefit for not offering an equivalent deal. The monetary savings are minimal and the Governor would still be able to say that all workers had to take furlough days and the same cut in salary.

Instead, having just read my union's list-serv, I see a bunch of very disgruntled faculty, with several suggesting political protests be undertaken. They feel the Governor is continuing a campaign of dismantling public higher education in New Jersey and has intentionally targeted college faculty. This is not how to consolidate what should be a very loyal part of your base.

Why would the Corzine pick this fight when he's in a close election? It only costs him votes of AFT members. The general population cares only about the CWA agreement since they are the largest union.

Best,
pb

*** Note: I'm pleased to report that the state subsequently offered AFT an agreement equivalent to the one offered to CWA ***

Star Ledger on Garrett

johnconstantine — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:49:06 GMT

Courtesy of RetireGarrett.com:

Today's Star Ledger features an inaccurate "puff piece" profile of Scott Garrett.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_bob_bra...

The writer, Bob Braun, goes as far as saying that Garrett, "has a reputation as pro-conservation," which is utterly dishonest. He receieved a 0% rating by the LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS! He also thinks global warming is a hoax.

Braun sums up Garrett's political philosophy in the sentence, "People should neither blame others for their problems, nor expect others to solve those problems." While that is a good philosophy in general, it is a horrible philosophy for someone whose job is enacting laws to HELP people with problems they can't solve on their own.

Another guiding political philosophy Garrett mentions in the article is that "good people" make a good society...

I think Scott Garrett just discovered the solution to world hunger, draught, and the Middle East conflict - Good People!

Technicalities + Realities = Insanities in Evesham And Beyond

Nick Lento — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:50:02 GMT

This started out as a quick comment on the Evesham scandal, but morphed into a larger rant so rather than totally disrupt/hijack Jason's excellent diary, we've put this up where it may cause less disruption....

********************************************************

It's obvious that none of the contractors would be giving any money at all if they didn't hope to recoup that money, and more, in the form of future jobs and profits.

Is it possible that some folks actually gave because they agreed with the purely policy aspects of the candidates? Yes, but I doubt it...and so does that vast majority of the people....the ordinary people of NJ (who aren't involved or informed about the intricacies of power/cash politics). Most New Jerseyans believe that "they're all a bunch of crooks".

I dare say that people who run for office in NJ who are just after doing good and trying to make government work for THE PEOPLE, are seen as naive interfering fools, gadflys and losers by most of the entrenched "professionals" in the field. Eh?

The rationale that Howarth is using to justify his actions is obviously a slick legal fiction concocted to keep him from being found guilty of breaking the letter of the law. And it might even work! ELEC isn't known for "rocking the boat" of New Jersey politics.

Meanwhile......
......Howarth certainly and obviously broke the spirit of the law.

New Jersey needs public campaign finance that is based on multiplying the effects of small (say, $5.00) contributions and/or signatures on nominating petitions.

Corporations can't vote. They are not human beings. They should not be allowed to buy our awmakers so the will then pass laws and give contracts to the businesses that ought them off; that's corrupt. And everyone knows that. Yet it continues.

This episode in Evesham is attracting some light and scrutiny, and that's a great thing! However if a bright light and a magnifying glass were placed under EVERY "donation" that went to politicians in NJ and an investigation were to be conducted to track the actual reasons for the "contribution", I dare say that most of the monies would be from parties seeking to, in some way shape of form, feather their own financial nests.

Public policy should be shaped by what is best for the whole, not how the politician can best pay back the interests and individuals that put them in power. I suspect that we can ALL agree with that.

So let's ALL get on board a movement to bring real/deep/profound change to the way we finance our campaigns in NJ!!!

Arizona and Maine are models from which NJ can draw for some guidance. It is my hope that we can write laws here that would be even cleaner than theirs.

When such laws are the norm in all 50 states it would be very hard for a Bush SCOTUS to kill all of them using Buckley v Valeo as a pretext.

Eventually, the Buckley decision needs to be reversed...even if it takes a constitutional amendment. Until then, the corrupt interests will always be trying to skirt and circumvent any and all legislative efforts to rein them in.

Ultimately, the only real assurance of clean government is a totally informed and aware citizenry that is vigilant about protecting itself from evil leeches; we have a long way to go on that one.

PS Here's an op-ed that from today's Times of Trenton that touches (oh so gently ;-) on the topic...

Corzine in South Jersey, consolidating services

Jay Lassiter — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:21:46 GMT

While Chris Christie looks around for his plans for New Jersey, Governor Corzine is out there actually making things better. Take a look.....

Two Strong Candidates Emerge In NJ 25th

xenos90 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:27:25 GMT

This election cycle will be defined by the top of the ticket, the Gubernatorial election. New Jersey however, will be shaped by each election in the state: the outcome of every Town Council race, every Freeholder race, and every Assembly race may change the way Trenton operates. This year, in New Jersey's 25th Legislative District, two strong candidates have emerged to wield the Democratic Banner and fight against the ever oppressive regime of Michael Patrick Carroll, and the newest addition to the Bucco family legacy: Anthony Bucco, Jr. Rebekah Conroy, an attorney, and Wendy Wright, a lecturer in Political Science at Rutgers, have stepped up to the plate for the District. As candidates, Rebekah and Wendy posses unique vantage points on the issues at hand in the district: Rebekah volunteers her time to represent litigants in need, including battered women and the accused; Wendy Wright, having worked in both academia and as a probation officer, understands the challenges public agencies face in both policy implementation and budget concerns. Both candidates are committed to bringing the voices of the 25th back to Trenton. They are dedicated to the community and to the State and will work tirelessly for the change our district so rightly deserves.
Mr. Carroll, the current representation in Trenton for the 25th District, has far too long represented only his own outdated, vapid, regressive policies and interests. In Trenton, Rebekah and Wendy will work for the interests of the people, to create polices that will help, not hinder, Morris County, and have set forth a number of novel ideas to help end the one way flow of tax dollars out of our community. Rebekah and Wendy are dedicated to bringing fresh, new ideas to debates, reflecting their expertise in understanding the challenges that face government in meeting our needs. The time has come to end the obstinate representation of Michael Patrick Carroll; the time has come to replace outdated policies with new ideas; the time has come to replace stagnant representation with progress; the time has come to elect Rebekah Conroy and Wendy Wright to New Jersey's General Assembly!

To offer support and ideas, please visit www.rebekahconroy.com and www.wendywright.us

Reed Gusciora for LG

denniscmcgrath — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:37:54 GMT

The link is to a NJ Times (that's the Trenton Times for us old timers) editorial extolling some Mercer county candidates for LG:

http://www.nj.com/opinion/time...

I've got a better idea. Assemblyman Reed Gusciora. He's progressive and he brings diversity to the ticket, both geographically and as a minority candidate (Reed's an out gay man).

I don't give this much of a chance, but I think Reed's worth a look.

In Support of the American Clean Energy and Security Act

NJCentrist — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:41:42 GMT

As an admitted political junkie, I find the PolitickerNJ.com website to be an excellent source for the news of New Jersey politics. Less appealing, of course, is the comments section, which largely consists of right wing political operatives and blowhards ranting about the Democrats and the moderate Republicans. Recently I came across a comment which called for primary challenges in 2010 aimed at Republican Representatives Leonard Lance, Chris Smith, and Frank LoBiondo, all of whom voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act ("Waxman-Markey bill") on Friday. This commenter, under the pseudonym "Kempite," railed against these congressmen, calling upon a conservative Steve Lonegan type to overthrow them in the primaries:

First that individual must commit themselves to sound environmental protections and policies that unlike Cap-and-Trade are both reasonable and effective and they must also be a proponent of legislative restraint who believes in the enumerated powers of the constitution, adheres to the principles of our free market economy and understands that our nation's defense and security is an effort that requires proactive policies as opposed to reactive measures.

The above excerpt moved me to write in defense of the Clean Energy Act. I hope those reading won't mind -- this is going to be long.

Okay. Kempite calls for sound environmental protections that fall within Congress's enumerated powers under the Constitution. First of all, he fails to explain what, exactly, about the American Clean Energy Act is not sound. For that matter, he fails to explain how Congress is exceeding its Constitutional power with this bill. Perhaps that's because the Act is clearly within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution. This clause states that Congress has the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." The actions ordered by Congress under the American Clean Energy Act clearly fall within the definition of regulating commerce among the several states that has been established my numerous Supreme Court cases. In National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, the Court ruled that Congress could regulate commerce within states as long as the things being regulated had "such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce" that their regulation by Congress was necessary. Then in Wickard v. Filburn the Court ruled "even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'" Even the limits placed on Congressional power more recently by United States v. Lopez do not apply here, as the regulations enacted by the Act obviously deal with the economy and commerce, unlike the handgun law struck down by that case. So I'm calling Kempite out on that. This bill is far from unconstitutional.

He also calls for representatives that respect the free market economy. Well, you know what? I agree. I respect the free market economy, and the bank bailouts made me tremendously uneasy. But sometimes there are extraordinary circumstances that require extraordinary actions to be taken by the government. He may not be aware of this, but Franklin D. Roosevelt was a fiscal conservative when he was elected. He sought to balance the budget and ultimately opted to continue deficit spending with some inhibitions. But Roosevelt recognized that in the midst of the biggest economic downturn in the history of the United States, there were extraordinary circumstances that required extraordinary actions to be taken by the government. His New Deal policies were designed to save the nation from the woes of the Great Depression; where the free market failed catastrophically, our government of the people, by the people, and for the people stepped in. We are facing some similarly extraordinary circumstances right now. First off, we are in the middle of an economic crisis. The free market has failed us. Am I advocating bringing socialism to the United States? Of course I'm not; I don't think the banks or car companies should be permanently nationalized, and I favor free enterprise in general. But we are in such disastrous circumstances right now that it has become necessary for our government - of the people, by the people, and for the people - to step in and save us.

Look, I'm not favoring an economy dominated by the state. I'm simply saying that you people have to recognize that under certain circumstances the principle of "that government is best which governs least" falters. In the current economic circumstances, it surely falters. Furthermore, we are facing an equally pressing crisis in the form of climate change. Maybe those far-right-wingers don't believe in the science of global warming, but on this issue I prefer to trust scientists who know what they're talking about over Bible-thumpers who know next to nothing about the science of our environment. Scientists have determined that global warming is caused in large part by the voluminous emissions of greenhouse gases by our burning fossil fuels and releasing pollutants from our factories combined with deforestation. The negative effects of global warming are alarming to say the least. It's not just sea levels rising a few inches and some glaciers melting. This will affect the economy plenty. Studies show that agriculture will be severely harmed by global warming, right here in the United States and around the world. For that matter, changes in precipitation patterns will dramatically alter the distribution of our water supply right here in the U.S. This, of course, is in addition to the dismaying problems posed by the extinction of numerous animal and plant species, the depletion of the ozone layer, and the ongoing deforestation across the world.

I find it somewhat interesting that Kempite and other right wing commenters are treating the American Clean Energy Act as though it is the most liberal piece of legislation ever passed by the House. Perhaps they haven't been paying attention, but this bill is a compromise. Reps. Waxman and Markey deserve a lot of credit for writing a bill that could be agreed upon by a majority of congressmen.

Kempite claims that the bill is neither reasonable nor effective. Of course, he or she completely fails to back this claim up once again. I posit that the bill is both reasonable and effective. John Boehner and other Republicans have greatly exaggerated the increase in energy costs that the average household would experience. Why, exactly, should we trust Boehner's estimates over those made by the nonpartisan CBO or the EPA, who intensely studied the bill to determine the cost per household? It's their job to do so, and I'm more inclined to believe their numbers than those submitted by a partisan politician like Boehner. Boehner's numbers, of course, ignored the offsetting benefits of the legislation in an attempt to make the cost seem greater than it actually is. He claims that the bill would drive jobs out of the United States. Funny, he didn't have any qualms about voting for NAFTA, which has dramatically increased the national trade deficit and thus caused net job losses in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In any case, the most accurate number is probably that provided by the CBO, which estimates that the average household will pay $175 more per year in energy bills. This, as Rep. Markey astutely noted, is about the same as the cost of buying a postage stamp every day.

So the bill is reasonable. But is it effective? After reading about the bill extensively, I have decided that it certainly has the potential to be effective. One of the bill's key components is an unprecedented hard cap on carbon emissions. Needless to say, it's about time we started taking some action in this regard. The cap will certainly have a dramatic effect; it requires that companies cut carbon emissions by 17% by 2020 and by 83% by 2050 (compared to 2005 levels). This is an attainable goal, and more importantly, the bill will replace the vast majority of America's carbon emissions and fossil fuel consumption with clean and renewable energy in just four decades.

Don't believe that these goals are attainable? Analyses by the Energy Information Administration within the Department of Energy have determined that in most regions of the U.S. our generators are utilizing coal-fired capacity about seven-tenths of the time but are utilizing natural-gas-fired capacity only one-tenth of the time. Switching from predominantly using coal-fired capacity to predominantly using more efficient natural-gas-fired capacity by 2020 would, when combined with gradual increases in the use of renewable energy sources, meet the 17% benchmark easily and cheaply. And keep in mind that while we are switching to more energy-efficient sources like natural gas, the renewable energy sector will be gradually increasing. Indeed, the bill would require electric companies to obtain 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2020. Again, this is not a difficult benchmark to meet. The EIA has already projected that, thanks to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ("stimulus package") passed earlier this year, renewable energy will be at 14% by 2012. With the extra incentives provided by this bill, we can expect to meet the 20% benchmark easily, which, as I said before, will combine nicely with a switch to efficient natural gas to meet the mandated carbon emissions cap. (And let's not forget that 17% is quite significant - that emissions reduction is equal to taking 500 million cars off the road.) A gradual expansion of renewable energy, with the present investment by the federal government and the private investment spurred by the incentives in this bill, will transform our energy economy in four decades, and hopefully go a long way toward combating the crisis of climate change.

And of course there's the "trade" part of the "cap-and-trade" program, in which companies may purchase a limited quantity of carbon offsets rather than reducing their emissions, and trade these offsets among themselves. The most important point to consider here is that, first of all, the offsets that will be sold by the EPA will not gut the emissions reductions made by other companies, as they will be limited. Also, scientists and analysts predict that by 2020 clean energies will be affordable as alternatives to purchasing offsets - in particular, efficient natural gas (as mentioned above) and biomass co-firing. Democratic amendments to the bill have included the creation of a Clean Energy Bank and the creation of the Cash for Clunkers program.

So, this bill will result in major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and increased investment in clean energy, while helping us kick our addiction to foreign oil. So what's the downside? A crippling cost passed on to the American people in their electric bills? No, the nonpartisan CBO says the average household would pay about the cost of buying one postage stamp per day, and there are plenty of protections for lower-income Americans in the bill.

Okay, but will the bill kill jobs, like the Republicans are warning us? An exhaustively researched report by the Center for American Progress shows that those Republican claims are unfounded (or, in less genial terms, bulls***). The combination of the Clean Energy Act and the "stimulus" from earlier this year can potentially generate up to $150 billion per year in new clean-energy investments in the United States by 2020. What's more, this $150 billion in spending would be dominated not by the government but by the private sector, according to the report. This new investment would generate a net increase of 1.7 billion jobs - that's right, a net increase. Unlike NAFTA, which destroyed more American jobs than it created, the stimulus-Clean Energy Act tandem would create more jobs in clean energy than it would destroy in the fossil fuel sectors of the economy. According to the report, even if investment in fossil fuels declined by the same amount that investment in clean energy increased, only 800,000 jobs would be lost in the fossil fuels sector, which would be supplanted by about 2.5 million jobs in the clean energy sector. Now that's exciting. Even more exciting, perhaps, is the data showing how there would be a net increase in job opportunities in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Where fossil fuel industries only generate 5.3 jobs for every $1 million in spending, clean energy industries generate 16.7 jobs for every $1 million in spending. And according to the report, right here in New Jersey we would see a net increase of 48,000 jobs and a net increase of $4.6 billion in investment revenue.

So: Sorry, Republicans, but you're dead wrong. And I'm with you on the general principle of free enterprise, but there are times when the government has to step in to solve a crisis where the free market has failed. This climate change crisis is one of those times. And, unfortunately for you, your arguments against this bill fall flat. It's reasonable, setting attainable goals at low cost to taxpayers, and it's effective, greatly decreasing carbon emissions and transforming an economy based on inefficient fossil fuels into an economy based on clean, efficient, and renewable energy - all while causing net job growth in the private sector in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. And it's certainly constitutional. Voting for this bill should have been a no-brainer. I can certainly see why a fiscal conservative would be concerned about how universal healthcare would inflate the budget - hell, I'm still on the fence on that - but this bill pays for itself.

Kudos to Reps. Lance, Smith, and LoBiondo and everyone else who voted for this bill. And thanks to the Center for American Progress, the Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration, Science Progress, ClimateProgress.org, and other sources for the information that I used in this diary.

Those Funny Dressed People In The Parade Scare Me

nathanrudy — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:20:02 GMT

You know, there were a LOT of funny dressed people at that parade. They musty be REALLY weird, and that scares the crap out of me. I mean, can you imagine these people married with kids? Ewwwwww!

I mean, anyone who dresses up so weird and dance through the streets like this has got to be unAmerican.
ST PATRICK'S

MUMMERS

THANKSGIVING

FOURTH OF JULY

LABOR DAY

Is there nothing we can do...

William Weber (WjcW) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:15:03 GMT

Every day I read of Sean Goldman I am sickened.

The facts as I have read them indicate that Sean's mother took the boy on a trip to Brazil to see his family there. Upon arrival they informed the father back in the US they would not return. Since, the mother has remarried, then died during birth of Sean's half sister.

At this point Sean's stepfather has claimed custody and the Brazilian judical system seems to support his claim.

I know Sean is not the first nor the last international child abduction. I can't tell you how frustrated I feel for the father (or mothers in similar situations) when I read of this case.

From what I've read, Chris Smith is sponsoring legislation that would provide for punitive measures against those governments which allow these kidnappings.

I encourage the Blue Jersey community to contact their representatives and voice support for Chris Smith's legislation.

Corzine '09 Weekly Roundup

Team Corzine — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:28:50 GMT

Whether on the ground or online, Corzine '09 supporters are mobilizing to help re-elect Governor Corzine! This is the first installment of our weekly roundup of campaign happenings by the Corzine '09 new media team. Are you talking about our campaign on your Blog, Twitter, or Facebook? Let us know by linking to your post on one of our social network pages.

Make the jump for this week's roundup.
Here on Blue Jersey, Jay Lassiter produced a video highlighting Governor Corzine's visit to the Food Bank of South Jersey with New Jersey Agriculture Secretary Douglas Fisher and U.S. Department of Agriculture's Yvette Jackson on June 17th. Jay wrote, "I found the Jersey Freshest solution to combatting hunger and malnutrition and helping out farmers...take a look."

Also on Blue Jersey, Jason Springer wrote about President Barack Obama's comments about our race.

It's not often that we get a quote of the day from the President of the United States himself, but he talked about the Governor and gave a prediction for his re-election effort:
"I think very highly of Jon Corzine. I think he's a terrific public servant," the president said during a White House interview with a handful of newspaper reporters from around the country. "I'm confident that he can win re-election. I don't think it's surprising that he may have a significant challenge."

Alex Torpey blogged about what it means to have a partner in Washington:

The idea that our Governor now will be able to work with the White House, a stark contrast to the past administration, is a bright prospect for New Jersey to continue to the lead the country in creating effective and socially responsible policy.

Blogging about the PV America conference on solar energy in Philadelphia, the Unofficial Aston Solar Corp Blog asked:

While it's not surprising that sun-drenched California leads the US with 67% of the country's grid-connected solar power, how did a little East Coast state like New Jersey gain the No. 2 spot with nearly 9% (and double the power of No. 3 state Colorado)?

They found the answer:

"Helping the state to boost alternate energy was the view of Governor Jon Corzine, who realized that environment and energy policies are interlinked, but also saw a business opportunity. This view drove NJ's "Master Plan" goals.
...With support coming from the top, and the willingness to be flexible when needed, NJ appears to have a bright future in solar."

PV America attendees were not the only ones to recognize Governor Corzine's achievements in energy and the environment this week. At Piece of Mind, a sustainable residential designer/blogger noted Governor Corzine's Top 10 ranking in Greenopia.com's Greenest Governors project. From Greenopia:

"The most notable initiative that Governor Corzine has spearheaded is his Energy Master Plan which calls on New Jersey to be more energy efficient as well as use more renewable energy. What we like best about this plan is the target of 30% renewable energy which trumps most other states energy plans. Governor Corzine has implemented several steps for reducing New Jersey's greenhouse gas emissions through programs such as his Clean Car initiative and Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Governor Corzine has also stressed the importance of preservation and pollution control.
...Governor Corzine is one of the few Governors who has taken a Political Courage Test which makes him one of the more transparent politicians out there. Governor Corzine also has very good environmental information on his site so concerned citizens can track the issues although the information could stand to be easier to find."

Garden State Equality wrote to their members about their support for Governor Corzine:

When Garden State Equality endorses a candidate, as we've done in endorsing Governor Corzine for reelection, we don't do so out of reflexive loyalty to any one political party.
...But in the 2009 election for Governor, there is no contest: Corzine by a mile.

AMERICABlog's Joe Sudbay noted the GSE endorsement and lauded Governor Corzine's support for marriage equality:

The state legislature will be taking a vote on marriage during the New Jersey Legislature's lame-duck session -- meaning after the November elections. A win by Corzine will give great momentum to that legislation.
...Pro-actively campaigning on marriage equality by a governor who can help make it happen -- that gets my attention. Corzine wants to make marriage equality an issue in this race.

Watch Governor Corzine talk about the importance of marriage equality earlier this month at the 18th Annual New Jersey LGBTI Pride Celebration:

Earlier this week, we posted video featuring U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Governor Corzine announcing additional federal funds for New Jersey's children's health insurance program. If you haven't seen it, watch below.

In response, YouTube user nilent commented:

This is an occasion to be proud of being from New Jersey ... Thanks to the efforts of Jon Corzine and the bulk of the NJ Congressional delegation our kids can have access to health care regardless of their parents financial status. Hooray!!!

Finally, campaign manager Maggie Moran recorded a video update on the state of the race and how you can get involved. Watch it here:

That's all for this week. To get regular updates from the campaign, sign up for our email list, friend us on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter. Get updates on your cell phone by texting NJ to 71310. You can also subscribe to our YouTube page to be the first to hear of our new videos.

The right in general

DaFro — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:42:42 GMT

Mr. Christie is a threat to the state of New jersey if he gets elected to office. The man clearly has no basis in the reality of New Jersey life, and were the ones who are gonna pay the price. The problem is as follows.

The unfortunate reality is that most people on the right will only vote to the right. It doesn't matter that the candidate has any moral fiber, or stands by his convictions. The only thing that matters is that they get one of their own into office. This man has lied (on oath), cheated and stolen from this great state, and no one from the right seems to care about this. Its all about getting Corzine out of office, no matter what it takes. Obviously this isn't a Jersey only issue.

This month alone popped out more controversy and scandals from the right then I have seen in a long time. Between Ensign's hypocrisy and Sanford's immoral discretion's, one would think this is a party crumbling. But its quiet the opposite. These men are being applauded by their peers for doing immoral and unjust practices. This happened at the Judiciary hearing with Christie as well. All the charges being presented to him, and the Leading (R) on the panel couldn't help but praise this man for essentially cheating the system.

Not only that, but the man has the balls to just stand up and walk out of the hearing because he has to make a train back to jersey. WHAT could possibly have been that important for him to just up and leave an official government proceeding. Christie is acting like hes immune to the laws that govern the rest of us, and that's just unacceptable.

Its really not entirely his fault though. If it wasn't for the right wing, who makes a practice of looking the other way when it comes to real inter-party issues, Christie wouldn't have this sense of entitlement. Not to mention, the Right wing Media (especially Right wing radio personality Rush Limbaugh) who encourage these right wingers to do what they want, no matter the consequences. Few examples (not jersey related sorry) Limbaugh blames Obama for Sanfords Sexual indiscretions. Basically saying that Sanford didn't agree with the president policies, not to mention the Stimulus, and all that stress led to him boning some woman from South America. Come on Rush, BS. Or how about Figures such as Beck or O'Reilly who basically (not in so many words) called on people to take care of Dr. Tiller. And back to the cases of Sanford and Ensign, 2 men who should be ousted from office (cause they would demand the same if a (D) committed this) Instead of being outcast, they receive a standing ovation from their party for their spirit (or whatever you wanna call the lack there of).

And back to point, the same thing is gonna happen with Christie. Even if he is found to have done any immoral practices in the past it wont matter, cause bitter people in this state are blind, and therefore want blind change. Its a shame the economy is the way it is, but it CERTAINLY isn't Corzines fault as everyone seems to want to cry about these days. And people are gonna vote for Christie just for change, but unfortunately its not the change they expect. And by the time these blind voters realize this, it will be too late. I cant help but feel helpless in this whole situation. Im just 1 man, 1 voice, and I feel like my voice isn't being heard. Am I alone in the way i feel this is gonna play out?