Garden State Patriot

The District 40 primary is about to take an ugly turn. Assembly candidate Anthony Rottino is suing his opponent, Scott Rumana, for defamation. The suit was brought on due to some accusations in a Rumana mailer and magazine advertisment that Rottino’s development company used taxpayer funded bonds to build low income housing in Newark and East Orange. From PolitickerNJ:

The vicious Republican primary fight in District 40 just turned even nastier.  

Assembly primary challenger Anthony Rottino is suing incumbent Assemblyman Scott Rumana (R-Wayne) for $350,000 over a mailer and magazine advertisement that he said made false accusations about his development company building low income housing. 

The suit charges that Rumana’s campaign piece falsely claimed that a company Rottino has a stake in, P.C. Development, used $16.5 million in taxpayer-funded bonds to develop low-income housing in Newark and East Orange.  That, according to Rottino’s attorney, Matthew DiBrino , is a “blatant lie,” as was a photo of a building purporting to be one that Rottino developed. 

According to the court filing, the ad reads: “While Rottino profited from building low income housing, Scott Rumana fought against it.”

The D-40 primary has already been hotly contested to say the least. Challengers Rottino and Caruso have been consistently hammering Rumana as a faux Republican who has failed to stand up for party values. When Rumana had a chance to meet with D-40 voters last week at a BCYR event, he didn’t show up. Now, this law suit raises the stakes that much higher.

Suffice it to say, a lot of eyes will be awaiting the outcome of this primary on June 2nd.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude and Red County.

The Heritage Foundation has done an exhaustive analysis of the C(r)ap & Trade legislation being readied in the House. The Waxman-Markey bill [logically so-called for the bill's main sponsors, Henry "The Taxman" Waxman (CA) and Ed Markey (MA)], would have significant and drastic negative effects on our economy according to Heritage. Consider that Waxman-Markey, by 2035, would:

Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $7.4 trillion,

Destroy 844,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1,900,000 jobs,

Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation,

Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent,

Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent,

Raise an average family’s annual energy bill by $1,500, and

Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 29 percent, or $33,400 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.

Sound like change you can believe in?

Read the rest of the heritage analysis here: The Economic Impact of Waxman-Markey

“Americans do want to pay taxes for services…Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.”

Those were the words of Colin Powell recently, while he was also firing missiles at the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. I wonder what the former General thinks now in the wake of a resounding defeat for liberal Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in California? The “Taxinator” saw several budget proposals go down in flames yesterday with California voters sending a clear message: ‘enough is enough.’ These voters did not vote for more taxes and government services. Quite the opposite.

Californians, who like New Jerseyans, pay through the nose in taxes, are now seeing the proverbial chickens come home to roost. California is facing a staggering $42B deficit this year. Years of wasteful borrowing and spending, as well as confiscatory taxes to pay for many liberal government programs, have destroyed the state, which for all intents and purposes is bankrupt.

In yesterday’s special election, voters defeated 5 of the 6 measures, all of which would have increased taxes or fees. They included:

• Proposition 1A – If Proposition 1A had passed, $10 billion in “temporary” sales, use, income and vehicle taxes imposed as part of the 2009-2010 budget agreement would each be extended for one or two years, resulting in a further tax increase of some $16 billion. (DEFEATED 65.9% to 34.1%)
• Proposition 1B – Proposition 1B would have mandated supplemental payments of $9.3 billion to schools and community colleges. This figure is the difference between the amount actually appropriated in recent budgets, and the amount that, under some interpretations of California Proposition 98 (1998), should have been spent. If approved by a popular vote majority, the measure will only be enacted if California Proposition 1A (May 2009) also wins. That proposal would allow an extension of tax increases imposed as part of the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 budget agreement, resulting in an additional tax increase of some $16 billion. (DEFEATED 62.6% to 37.4%)
• Proposition 1C - Proposition1C was part of the ill-fated 2009-2010 California state budget and tax increase agreement.^[2],^[3] Proposition 1C would have authorized borrowing against future lottery proceeds as a way to avoid state government spending cuts. The 2009-2010 budget plan includes $5 billion from this source, and the measure would also authorize similar borrowing in future years. It does not include a cap on the amount of future lottery revenue that could be pledged to pay for current spending. Essentially, the measure would allow a form of deficit spending that is not subject to the balanced budget provisions adopted by a vote of the people in California Proposition 58 (2004). 1C also would have made changes to allow lottery funds to be used things other than education, as well as details regarding how the program was managed. (DEFEATED 64.6% to 35.4%)
• Proposition 1D – To avoid additional cuts in general fund-supported state spending, Proposition 1D would have authorized a fund-shift of $268 million in annual tobacco tax revenue currently earmarked for “First Five” early childhood development programs under the terms of California Proposition 10 (1998). That revenue, plus $340 million in unspent “First Five” tobacco tax money now held in a reserve fund, would instead have been used to pay for other state government health and human services programs that serve children, including Medicaid, foster care, child care subsidies, preschool programs, and more. Money for these programs currently comes from the state general fund.^[4] (DEFEATED 65.8% TO 34.2%)
• Proposition 1E – To avoid additional cuts in general fund-supported state spending, Proposition 1E would have authorized a fund-shift of approximately $230 million annually in income tax surcharge revenue currently earmarked for specified mental health programs under the terms of California Proposition 63 (2004), also known as the Mental Health Services Act. For two years that revenue would instead have been used to pay for the state’s share of the “Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program,” a federally mandated Medicaid program for low income persons under age 21. Revenue for this program currently comes from the state general fund.^[6] The earmarked Proposition 63 (2004) revenue that would have been diverted comes from a 1 percent state income tax surcharge imposed on the portion of a taxpayer’s taxable income in excess of $1 million. In the past this surcharge has taken in between $900 million and $1.5 billion annually. (DEFEATED 66.4% to 33.6%)

Proposition 1F, which limits the pay of elected officials when the government is running a deficit, was the only one to pass. It did so by a wide margin of 73.9% to 26.1%.

Schwarzenegger and the other misfit politicians in California must now go back to the drawing board and do what they should have in the first place: downsize their out-of-control, bloated government.

But the rest of the nation ought to heed the message of California voters. Even in a in a deeply blue state like California, voters are coming to terms with the fact that taxpayer money is not an endless pit. This kind of outrageous spending and fiscal mismanagement can no longer be tolerated as it threatens our very prosperity. Unfortunately, we are heading down the same treacherous road at the federal level. The iceberg is dead ahead and, like the Titanic, to our own peril we are speeding up rather than trying to slow up and turn away.

Addendum: Also, check out Heritage’s commentary on California here.

For you younger folk out there, you might not understand this (as scary as that is to say). But once upon a time we had these things called vinyl records. You’d play them on a turntable and, sooner or later, they’d be scratched or cracked and when you were in the middle of that favorite song, the record would skip and you’d hear the same part of the song over and over…and over.

Well, that, my friends, is our Governor. You see, all you need to do is wait a few days and another story pops up regarding how the Governor is raising our taxes.

And so it is now, with word that Corzine (or should we call him ‘Skippy’) is going to be essentially doing away with our property tax rebates altogether, save for the disabled and seniors. Of course, no liberal tax cut plan is complete without soaking the rich a little further; thus, those making over a mil will be paying a punitive top rate of 10.75% on their income. Think a Lonegan flat tax that takes that rate down to 2.9% or 2.1% wouldn’t be a boon to the state’s economy?

TRENTON, N.J. – Most New Jersey homeowners, already paying the highest property taxes in the nation, will not see a property tax rebate check next year under Gov. Jon Corzine’s revised 2010 budget proposal.

The updated budget, released Tuesday by Treasurer David Rousseau, keeps rebates for seniors and the disabled but eliminates them for everyone else.

Corzine’s original proposal, released in March, got rid of rebates for those earning more than $75,000. But with updated revenue projections coming up $2 billion short for the 2010 budget year, Rousseau said rebates were not sustainable this year.

“We simply cannot spend money that we don’t have,” Rousseau told the Assembly Budget Committee members Tuesday.

The move would save the state nearly a billion dollars and cost homeowners $950 on average; renters would miss out on an average $75 rebate, according to the Treasury Department.

New Jersey taxpayers already pay $7,000 a year on average in property taxes, or about twice the national average. Property tax rebate checks have been around since 1977.

Assembly Budget Chairman Louis D. Greenwald said the rebates should be restored “as soon as the economy turns around.”

Corzine’s revised budget also raises income taxes on the wealthy, reduces the amount of education and preschool funding he proposed in March and raises taxes on HMOs, among other things.

While I’m at it, just what is special about seniors that they keep their rebate? I’m quite sure there are plenty of seniors who are living quite comfortably in their retirement. Some may even own homes in Florida that they flock to as snow birds in the winter. Why would they be more worthy than someone supporting a family of four while making a median salary in the low $40’s? Oh, wait. They are more inclined to vote so let’s not take theirs away.

You’d think that if we are going to pick the winners and losers, those who have to ’sacrifice’ and those who do not, the barometer by which to choose would be income, not age.

Alas, most of us are going to be hit by a tax increase. The ‘rich’ will be soaked even further and our economy will suffer all the more for it.

Is it November yet? Because I really want to trade in this turntable for an IPod.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

Oh, the irony! Just last week after Art Laffer endorsed Lonegan, the anti-Lonegan forces around the blogosphere and the Internet immediately tried to undercut the endorsement by pointing to Laffer’s debate with economist Peter Schiff, in which he made some economic predictions that didn’t come to fruition. Schiff, of course disagreed with Laffer at the time.

Well, what will they do now given that Schiff himself is going to endorse Lonegan?

Economist Peter Schiff of Connecticut is scheduled to endorse GOP gubernatorial candidate Steve Lonegan at a press conference this afternoon at the Statehouse.

“He likes Steve’s flax tax plan,” said Lonegan campaign strategist Rick Shaftan.

Schiff served as an economic advisor to U.S. Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-Texas) presidential campaign last year, and endorsed Prof. Murray Sabrin for U.S. Senate in the 2008 Republican Primary.

Cross-posted at CWA! and Red County.

Isn’t it bad enough that people who have made good choices on their mortgages are paying for people who can’t pay theirs? Now the credit card companies want people with good credit to pay more to make up for those with bad credit?

Credit cards have long been a very good deal for people who pay their bills on time and in full. Even as card companies imposed punitive fees and penalties on those late with their payments, the best customers racked up cash-back rewards, frequent-flier miles and other perks in recent years.

Now Congress is moving to limit the penalties on riskier borrowers, who have become a prime source of billions of dollars in fee revenue for the industry. And to make up for lost income, the card companies are going after those people with sterling credit.

Banks are expected to look at reviving annual fees, curtailing cash-back and other rewards programs and charging interest immediately on a purchase instead of allowing a grace period of weeks, according to bank officials and trade groups.

Fausta has more on this. Her answer: pay cash.

I wish it were that easy, though. Most people aren’t that comfortable carrying around a lot of cash. I know I don’t want to be walking around with a roll of hundos when I’m making a big purchase. And then there’s Internet sales. Hard to pay cash for those Amazon.com purchases. 

Honestly, I don’t know how much longer this kind of stuff can go on without a revolt. The tea parties were a reaction to this kind of stuff. We can’t continue to attack the producers and subsidize the non-producers. It’s immoral and unsustainable.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

So, last night I walk on the door, turn on the tube and hit the old favorites button…right to Fox News, of course!…and who do I see? None other than Chris Christie and Mayor Giuliani on with Sean Hannity. (You can go to Christie’s web site to see the interview if you wish: Hannity)

Now, the substance of the interview isn’t what mattered to me about the interview. My initial reaction was, why is Christie on with Giuliani? Yes, Giuliani is supporting Christie and has endorsed him. I get all that. But politically, it seemed to me to be a bad move for Christie. For me, it seemed like he needed Rudy there to hold his hand during the interview. I just thought the appearance of it all was not a positive for him.

Secondly, I was sort of surprised to see Hannity have Christie on. Obviously, the NJ Governor’s race is important and there is a story here to be told, but Hannity has made a point on his radio show of staying out of state primaries. However, giving Christie national air time is tantamount to giving him support.

So if Sean Hannity is to be fair – and if he truly wants to stay out of state primaries – he really ought to invite Mayor Lonegan on to give him ‘equal time.’

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude! and Red County.

The New Jersey Young Republican Federation held one of its biggest events of the year over the weekend. I wasn’t sure myself if I was going to be able to attend but I am glad it worked out so I could. Being that I will not be a YR for much longer – the dreaded ‘4-0′ is right around the corner – I am happy that I went. Not only was the event filled with a number of terrific speakers, but it was a great opportunity to meet so many like-minded people who are trying to build the Republican Party back up. From what I saw the future looks bright.

Fellow CWA! poster Sharon Soon and myself.

Here is a brief synopsis of the day’s events:

Congressman Frelinghuysen was the first major speaker to address the conference and he touched on some of the things going on in Washington, such as proposals that will lead to nationalizing health care. He urged everyone to be ‘vigilant’ in opposing the very left-wing legislation coming from the new administration and Congress. And on another note, in no uncertain terms the Congressman said that Nancy Pelosi’s claims of not being briefed on interrogation methods were ‘a lie.’

Minority Leader Alex DeCroce spoke to the attendees about the prospects of winning this year. He said he was ‘charged up’ about this election cycle and felt we had opportunities to win in areas of the state where Republicans haven’t been successful recently. He also urged people to run for office and to not ’sell themselves short’ and that the party needs people ‘from all walks of life.’ The Assembly Leader spoke of the importance of this year’s elections and that in this state (and the nation) we have ‘gone too far left’ and need to bring things back in the other direction.

Matt Rooney of SaveJersey gave a talk about blogging. Matt did a nice job and emphasized the importance of those of us on the right using blogs and other social networks in getting our message out. Obviously, the Democrats and the Obama campaign used these tools to their advantage last year, but if I may inject my own opinion here, I believe we are catching up quite fast in this regard.

Keith Davis, Atlantic County Chairman, effectively laid out Corzine’s long list of failures, calling him the worst Governor in the country (hard to disagree with that!). But Keith also pointed out what he felt were the two biggest challenges we Republicans face: unity and money. Keith called for the party to come together after the June 2nd primary, going on to say we have the right message this year and were poised to bring back competence to Trenton.

Assemblywoman McHose was next up and addressed several issues. She mentioned that the dying print press has led to fewer press people in Trenton and, ergo, less watchful eyes there to report on things going on in the legislature. Assemblywoman McHose also spoke of women in politics, mentioning that the legislature is composed of more women now than at any time before and that she has had a hand in forming Women’s Caucus. She is also working to pass legislation to further transparency in government. Two such pieces of legislation are the Party Democracy Act and the Transparency in Government Act – the latter of which is being co-opted and watered down by Democrats in Trenton. The Assemblywoman also went on to rail against the DEP, an agency that she said is ’strangling’ the state.

Assemblyman Webber followed and also touched on a number of issues. He touted his role in defeating taxpayer funded elections. The Assemblyman also spoke of the need to use technology and for YR’s to get online and network. He spoke of the YR’s as not just the future of the party, saying ‘we are the now of the party’ (the Assemblyman himself only being 37). He urged them to run for office themselves if they saw fit and not to hold back or wait their turn.

(more…)

Here is my analysis of today’s Lonegan-Christie debate:

 vs.

The second one-on-one debate between Lonegan and Christie just finished airing on WABC. This debate seemed to take on a bit of a different tone than the first one. For one thing, Mayor Lonegan seemed a bit more at ease and himself in this debate. I also think that some of the differences between the candidates emerged/became more pointed and Mayor Lonegan displayed superior knowledge of some of the issues facing the state. So, rather than go through point-by-point and question-by-question, I will try to highlight some of the key differences.

Taxes

Income Taxes – By now, we all know that Christie is proposing across-the-board income tax cuts and Lonegan is proposing a flat tax — a proposal criticized by Christie has criticized as being a tax hike on 70% of taxpayers. But perhaps the most interesting moment in the debate was when Mayor Lonegan asked Christie what his rates would be. Christie delivered no specifics. How far will he drop the top rate? Will he simplify the structure by reducing the number of brackets? How much lower will folks paying a 1.4% rate be cut? We don’t know because Mr. Christie didn’t tell us.

Property Taxes – Obviously, several things factor into why our property taxes are so high in New Jersey – none more than Abbott District funding. So, it was interesting that neither candidate really made that connection in today’s debate.

That said, Christie continues to support the property tax rebate program citing it as the only current meaningful relief. Lonegan criticiced Christie on this issue, essentially saying that Christie could not simultaneously cut spending and keep the rebate program.

Mr. Christie also supported consolidating services to help relieve property taxes. To me this is merely a band-aid. Mayor Lonegan, of course, is a strong proponent of home rule and quite simply made the point that smaller government is more efficient and less costly. He even said that a better solution would be breaking Newark up into 3 districts.

Sales Tax – Mr. Christie did not propose a change to the sales tax. When asked about Corzine’s sales tax increase he laid into the Governor for misusing the the proceeds form the sales tax to fund earmarks and pay off Democrat cronies. Mayor Lonegan, on the other hand, pointedly said he would roll the sales tax back to 6%.

Corporate Tax – Mayor Lonegan proposed eliminating the corporate tax while Chris Christie wants to cut it but did not say by how much.

Terrorism

A couple of questions arose regarding terrorism. Interestingly and surprisingly, Mr. Christie took the opportunity of his chance to question Mayor Lonegan to ask about Gitmo terrorists. With President Obama obviously proposing to close Gitmo, it opens up the possibility of those terrorists needing to be imprisoned in the U.S. and potentially here in New Jersey. Mayor Lonegan initially didn’t answer Christie’s question directly, but said he would allow Gitmo detainees to be imprisoned in New Jersey facilities. Christie said he would fight this if Governor. On this particular issue, I think the devil would be in the details as I do not know what the administration’s plans are for Gitmo detainees, let alone if state governors would be forced tot take them.

Later, though, one of the panelists asked what each candidate would do in the event of a terrorist attack. Mr. Christie mentioned that he had dealt with this before after 9/11 as U.S. attorney but I’m not sure how this connected to overseeing or being involved with a coordinated response to a terrorist attack on metro area bridges and subways.

Mayor Lonegan displayed better knowledge on this subject, pointing to plans that are already in place amongst cities, towns, state police and the Department of Homeland Security.

The candidates clashed on several other issues, including greenhouse gas emissions and mass transit. In each case, Mayor Lonegan appeared to me to be more specific and on point. He asked Christie why he didn’t stand up with him to oppose the recent utility rate hike. He was more extensive in his remarks regarding mass transit and the forthcoming light rail project. He brought up the issue of the Highlands Act and how it was hurting the state.

So, on whole, I felt that Mayor Lonegan won this second debate. And lest anyone accuse me of being biased towards Mayor Lonegan, I called the first debate a draw.

Finally, the best dig of the debate came near the end when Mr. Christie remarked that he became a lawyer because he wasn’t as good at science and math. In response to that, Mayor Lonegan quipped, “and that reflects in your plan for cutting taxes.”

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude! and Red County.

It’s been about 2 weeks, but GSP is back. Our blogging platform had been nailed by spammers but they couldn’t keep us down forever thankfully!

In the event of another outage, please remember to check my other blogs at Conservatives with Attitude! and Red County for my latest.