Salant got it wrong: NJ Republicans didn’t reject pro-Trump candidates…

(1) Who were the explicitly anti-Trump candidates?

(2) Generally, too many anti-establishment candidates ran.

By Sussex Watchdog

NJ.com writer Jonathan Salant is widely considered to be extraordinarily biased against Republicans and progressive reformers by both Democrat and especially Republican campaign operatives. Even the moderates think he sucks (and we have that in writing). Establishment Democrats count on him to robotically repeat their line but everyone else has little use for him.

So, you can imagine the bemusement that came with Salant’s political prognostications on Sunday morning. Sure, everyone can have an opinion, but Salant’s understanding of the GOP borders on superstition. You can imagine him beginning the effort by placing a mouse in his pocket and a garland of garlic around his neck.

Post-primary, the NJGOP establishment is still in its cups, yet to recover from a series of shocks, near-losses, and outright losses – all at the hands of vastly outspent rightwingers. Even the line didn’t hold up in places like Bergen and Morris Counties.

Nowadays, nobody runs openly as a “moderate”. Not in the GOP, anyway. Not even in the New Jersey GOP. So, every Republican candidate in every contested primary is trying to convince Republican voters that he or she is the conservative in that race. It makes for a lot of confusion.

Salant was trying to make the point that anti-Trump Republicans defeated pro-Trump Republicans or, as he put it, “only in the 5th District did the apparent pro-Trump candidate emerge victorious.” But that’s not being honest because none of the Republican candidates was overtly anti-Trump, not even in the way that Seth Grossman is (and he’s actually pro-Trump) and certainly not in the intellectually honest way that conservative columnist Paul Mulshine is. Ask yourself: Who is the equivalent of Paul Mulshine in the New Jersey Republican establishment today?

Criticism of the former President is muted, and the phrase “anti-Trump” is found on campaign literature as often as a self-description of “moderate” is, which is never. But despite all that many Republican voters, motivated by dissatisfaction, do figure out who is who and they appear to be getting better at it.

During the height of the Tea Party movement, Joe Kyrillos, an establishment State Senator running for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senator defeated three Tea Party conservatives 163,817 to 19,238 and 17,161 and 12,823 respectively. Kyrillos got 77 percent of the vote. In conservative Sussex County – without a line – Kyrillos won the primary with 45 percent of the vote (Sussex County’s Bader Qarmout came in second with 24 percent).

In last Tuesday’s CD07 Republican primary, establishment candidate Tom Kean Jr. defeated six opponents who were running to the right of him. He did so on a vote of 24,106 to 12,481 and 8,102 and 2,907 and 2,576 and 2,176 and 414. That is 45 percent of the vote. The anti-establishment vote in CD07 now mirrors that of Sussex County a decade ago. And on Tuesday in Sussex County, Kean was defeated with 33 percent to 37 percent for Pastor Phil Rizzo. And that was with the support of the Sussex County political establishment.

In 2006, as the establishment candidate, Kean won the GOP primary for U.S. Senate in Sussex County 4,809 to 2,414 – defeating a Steve Lonegan-backed candidate 66 percent to 34 percent. Now the relative strengths of the establishment and rightwing have been reversed.

Things have gotten a lot more crunchy, but maybe not in the way that people once defined it. Until quite recently, conservatives liked to talk about the movement’s three-legged policy stool of guns, babies, and taxes. More recently, especially since 2016, it was a four-legged stool of guns (the Second Amendment), babies (Pro-Life), taxes, and illegal immigration. That’s all in flux now.

The good news is that what it means to be a “social conservative” is changing and broadening. The bad news for some will be what those changes mean. Some talk of the rise of “bar stool” conservatism that is a reaction not to social changes, but to the bullying by movements associated with those changes.

Take same-sex marriage, for example. Many of the new “social conservatives” support it, just as they support basic civil rights protections for people regardless of their sexual preferences or identity. That said, these new conservatives (very often recent Democrats or with no party identification) loathe the religion-like proselytization by the LGBTQ+ movement, their demands that we fly their flag and celebrate their deal (and the name-calling if we don’t), and once in power their attempts to mandate their movement and indoctrinate children in schools and employees in the workplace.

A lot of “bar-stool” conservatives are former liberals (many still identify as liberals) – it is just that they still think they have the right to judge for themselves what a man is or a woman is, still believe they should be allowed to suggest that the science of chromosomes trumps the religion of faith-based feelings. They don’t like being threatened, they don’t care if they are “cancelled”, they have chosen to stand up to the bullying.

These new social conservatives have expanded the ranks but not the movement – because they are not “movement” people. They don’t want to be told. Not by a drag queen… or a religious leader. Nevertheless, they have potential for bringing together a loose majority.

Social conservatives – once a movement coasting south – have been provided a new urgency, a new momentum, by the overreach of the flag wavers, curriculum mongers, and pronoun Nazis’. But prognosticators like Jonathan Salant would be wrong to believe it’s the same movement it was just a few years ago. Here is an interesting discussion between two younger writers on the subject – one who was just published in the New York Times.

The NEW Culture War After the Religious Right | Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar

Premiered Jun 8, 2022 Krystal and Saagar have Marshall Kosloff interview National Review columnist Nate Hochman about the evolving culture war on the right due to secularization and the waning of the religious right.

Morris Freeholders: Checkmate Strategies vs. Checkmate Action

Will the sucking never end?  Does the media do any research anymore… or are they just in the business of being punked?

Yesterday, this popped up on a Left-leaning, Trenton-insider blog: 

One of the three candidates running on a slate against three incumbent Morris freeholders in the June Republican primary has spent $42,000 on consulting services with Checkmate Strategies LLC, which lists an address at 30 N.Gould Street in Sheridan, Wyo. That, according to an April 15 campaign financial statement filed with the state Election Law Enforcement Commission by candidate Donald Dinsmore.

Dinsmore is running on a slate with William Felegi and Cathy Winterfield against incumbents Doug Cabana, Kathy DeFillippo and Tom Mastrangelo. The ELEC filing by Dinsmore as an individual candidate lists the contribution as being made Feb. 4 of this year.

There is a New Jersey political consulting firm named Checkmate Strategies. Based in Jackson, it was co-founded by Chris Russell and has won numerous awards for its work. 

But Russell said in an email that his firm is not involved with the Dinsmore campaign…

So, there’s another Checkmate Strategies in Wyoming?

Maybe. 

However, the address in question, 30 N. Gould Street, is actually a mail forwarding center. According to its website, Wyoming Mail Forwarding promises to open and scan all mail and deliver it to the recipient the day it arrives. All well and good, but who exactly is Checkmate Strategies. And why does it have the same name as a well-known New Jersey consultant?

Dinsmore said the expenditure was for “consulting services,” which is also how it’s described on the ELEC report. But he declined to elaborate further.

There are some obvious questions here. Besides who the consultant actually is, why is a candidate in Morris County using a mail forwarding outfit in Wyoming?

Well, if the blog in question had done just a little creative research – in this case, searching the term “checkmate” on the Wyoming Secretary of State’s business name search engine – they would have found that, in fact, there is a registered corporation (in good-standing) by that name, doing business from that address. 

Screen Shot 2019-05-10 at 7.23.46 AM.png

As for the question:  And why does it have the same name as a well-known New Jersey consultant?  Well the writer is betraying a rather naïve Jersey-centric world view here.  There are no border checkpoints preventing a firm in Wyoming from working in New Jersey.  Checkmate Strategies itself has worked on races as far away as Alaska.  And the firm handling Mr. Dinsmore’s opponents has clients even further afield, often necessitating filings under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. 

Added to this is the fact that Checkmate Strategies doesn’t own their own name in most of the country.  Even in neighboring Pennsylvania…

Screen Shot 2019-05-10 at 7.52.28 AM.png

Like Checkmate Action Group LLC, Checkmate Strategies LLC is a somewhat recent entity, formed in New Jersey on September 22, 2017.  Its partners are Chris Russell of Jackson, New Jersey, and Michael Lawler of Pearl River, New York.  So it got the jump on the Wyoming firm by just over a year. 

Is all this an issue?  Well, when you figure out who actually owns Checkmate Action Group LLC, perhaps it will be.  Enjoy your research…

The hidden power we have to take back our schools.

By Gay Brandeal

Just supposing that you are confused or discouraged about a recent decision made in a NJ school system which affects your child’s safety or constitutional rights. Perhaps, it is concerning gender bathroom rules, the imposition of religious practices during a school day or did you read about the ability of many high school students to unblock sites which the school has deemed unacceptable on those daily used Chromebooks? What should one do? Well, there is the well-placed phone call to the superintendent, principal or teacher regarding the concern and an email to the board of education president as well asking some pointed questions regarding the point of disagreement. But can a parent do more? And speaking of the board of education do you know much about the state system which is in place for electing board members in NJ? The law states that every third Tuesday in April or during the fall general election (which is held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November) there should be an annual school board election. The purpose of this election is to submit a proposal to voters for the approval of additional funds, for electing board members or for other educational purposes or immediate needs for the coming year. All school elections are held by ballot and should be conducted in the same manner as a general election. Certain specific laws govern the withdrawal of a candidate’s name prior to an election. Names are drawn by the secretary to the board of education following the last day for filing and are positioned on the ballot in the order drawn. No political party designation should accompany the name of that individual running for the board.

But Alas! Here is the new law (S868) which may influence your decision to run for your local school board. No more than a one to three word designation summarizing a theme on which bracketed candidates could choose to run is now allowed as of 2019. For example, if Mrs. Jones, Mr. Ortega and Ms. Patel are all concerned about the safety of their school aged children they may be bracketed as “Safety First” candidates during the local school board election. Having circulated a petition summarizing their focus the candidates provide voters with information on certain issues. They would vote as a block in the coming decisions therefore providing more strength for that stand. The names of those “bracketed” together after a petition had been circulated gathering the names would appear together although the order on the ballot would be chosen by the bracketed group not the board secretary.

Serving on the school board requires a strong desire to provide the best education for local children. The study of issues, dedicated time, teamwork, knowledge of the law and people skills should be pre requisites for certain. Hopefully, people of integrity with motives to protect children and improve the educational milieu would be interested in serving. Consider for a moment the decisions which consistently lie in the hands of NJ board of education members in various cities and towns in the Garden State. In recent years LGBTQ rights as well as Chromebook safety issues have arisen in our state as well as questions about mandated religious practices being allowed within the school day. It is the local Board of Education members who wield the power to decide what will or will not be allowed in that particular school system. Should there be less revisionist history allowed or what bathroom and locker room rules will be altered to meet the perceived rights of a small group of students? What actually  happens to those Chromebooks at the end of the school year? How well are they scrubbed and can someone still hack into your child’s personal information from the previous year? What policies on bullying and discipline are put into practice and what power does the principal or superintendent really have to enforce them?? The board of education is in charge. The board closely monitors the use and distribution of monies and adopts curriculum changes which can completely alter what and how children are taught. Many parents and guardians are discouraged, confused or absolutely dissatisfied with their local public school system. Many are completely thrilled and are pleased at how their child’s academic and social needs are being met. Whatever your opinion is about the quality of your local schools be aware that the real power resides in the decisions made by your board of education members. It is this powerful board which initiates or stops new programs and policies which inevitably affect your child. Consider your desire to provide your child with the best public education possible in NJ and ponder whether you or a family member or friend would be an asset to the local board of education. Then consider what common ideas could be the foundation of those who are bracketed together with shared values. Is your child’s academic future worth the investment of your time and talent by running for your local board of education? Only you can answer.  

Visit www.njsba.org/candidacy for more information.

Gay Brandeal is a retired New Jersey educator from Morris County.

Is AFP even a conservative organization anymore?

Can we get serious?

In America, there is a consensus, a generally accepted agreement as to what the word “conservative” means.  Take a poll.  Ask the average voter what the word means.  The four pillars of modern American conservatism are pretty easy to remember:

(1) The Right to Life.  Conservatives, real conservatives, Reagan conservatives, we oppose abortion.  Full stop.  

(2) The Second Amendment.  Hey, how many court rulings do you need before you finally get that the government has no duty to protect you?  In a Republic, that is on you.  Conservatives oppose the anarchy of crime.  We support gun rights, local police, and laws that are tough on crime – especially violent crime.

(3) Less Government/ Lower Taxes.  Conservatives know that smaller government and less government regulation leads to less spending and debt, which enables governments to cut taxes.  Conservatives also know that crony capitalism is a form of political corruption and as such is itself a tax on the goods and services used by ordinary citizens.

(4) Illegal Immigration.  Conservatives like America and American culture.  We welcome anyone from anywhere who wants to come here and join us and become an American.  We don’t want to be colonized by foreign cultures with authoritarian or anti-democratic traditions.  We don’t want to be told that we need to change to accommodate those who gate-crash the laws of our country. 

In order to call yourself a conservative in America, you pretty much need to be all four of the above.  Maybe you can get away with being a little mushy on one and still be considered a “soft” conservative.  But if you are bad on more than one, you need to think about why you are a Republican.  (Hey, haven’t these people ever read the PLATFORM of the party they claim membership of?)

That’s not to say that anybody is a “bad” person.  It’s just saying that you’re not a conservative.  See, the word “conservative” actually does mean something.  It’s not just a term of praise used in the proper setting to describe people we happen to like… or want to suck-up to. 

“Conservative” doesn’t mean “libertarian”.  It is per se a traditionalist point-of-view.  Conservatives want to C-O-N-S-E-R-V-E the traditions and values of our American Republic.  Unlike our libertarian brethren, we don’t want to replace Mom and Apple Pie with the Orgasmatron and the Orb.

That’s not to say that conservatives and libertarians (or anyone else for that matter) can’t agree on certain issues and work together.  But having a conservative point of view on this or that issue doesn’t make one a conservative.  Heck, Bill Clinton called himself a “fiscal conservative” – that didn’t make him a conservative.  It made him a liberal who saw the political advantages of conservative policy on issues like welfare reform.  He was still a liberal. 

And so we come to the especially Jersey-style, end of year crap that recently went spewing itself all over the Internet.  For years now, New  Jersey has been working very hard at being the place words go to lose their meaning.  Reading “The Right 40 Women to Watch in 2019” (written by AFP’s head honcho in New Jersey) it’s now clear that this trend has reached new depths of meaninglessness – with many of those mentioned being members of the “Right” only in the way that Hillary Clinton can be considered being to the “Right” of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 

AFP – Americans for Prosperity – is the group formed by the super-rich Koch brothers as the political and lobbying arm of their business empire.  Anyone who knows anything about the Koch brothers knows that they come out of the Libertarian Party – in fact, one of the brothers actually ran against Republican Ronald Reagan on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1980.  Yes… THAT Ronald Reagan. 

And what a ticket that was… it supported everything from the decriminalization of narcotics and prostitution to America’s standing down as a world power.  If that crew had been elected, we’d still have the Soviet Union (and maybe they would have won).  But happily, Reagan won and the Koch operation was forced to rebrand itself as fake “conservative” – a move that started the process of unwinding the meaning of the word. 

Over the last decade or more, the Koch operation has done much to corrupt the conservative movement in America – in an effort to remake it in their own crony capitalist image.  Now they’ve come full circle and are back to advocating a soft-on-crime approach while pushing to flood the open market with recreational marijuana… this, in the midst of an opioid epidemic that is killing upwards of 50,000 people each year.

In fact, AFP in New Jersey has become so crony capitalist, so establishment, so anti-conservative values, that it has taken to shilling for far-Left politicians like U.S. Senator Cory Booker.  Just before Christmas, AFP paid for a mailing that lauded Senator Gropicus (a great moniker, courtesy of SaveJersey’s Matt Rooney) for a soft-on-crime package of feel good “reforms” that miss the problem entirely, but make for good media ads for his 2020 run against President Donald Trump.  Why the heck would AFP do something like that?  The Democrats don’t need the resources – they already have George Soros – now they have the Koch operation’s millions too? 

Among those women on “the Right” we were asked to “celebrate” were a half dozen who made the list because of their service on the just completed campaign of Bob Hugin for United States Senate.  Now maybe the writer didn’t get the memo, but Bob Hugin didn’t run from “the Right” and his campaign did all it could to distance itself from said “Right” – starting with millions in advertising assuring the electorate that he was a “different kind of Republican” who explicitly rejected at least one of the four pillars of modern American conservatism.  So WTF?

And since when did the legalization and sale of marijuana become a conservative issue?  Hasn’t anyone read about the vaping problem in our schools?  And this is with nicotine… imagine what it will be with marijuana?  And edibles?  How will policing the use of chocolate bars, peanut butter cups, and cookies work?  Candy for children… So how the heck did the “co-founder and executive director of the New Jersey Cannabis Industry Association” make a list of “women on the Right”???

Get out of your offices and talk to average people sometime!  Ask them if they think legalizing and selling an entry level drug in the midst of an opioid epidemic is a conservative political position?  Average voters will think you have lost your mind.  But there she is, on the list for being “at the helm” in her quest to “unleash a new industry within the State.”  What’s next?  Narcotics?  The legalization of human trafficking?  Prostitution?  Body parts?   Wait… it will come.

Rosemary Becchi made the list too.  She’s the president of a “new grassroots advocacy organization” formed in 2018 “to fight Jersey’s high taxes and propose policy solutions to the state’s complex financial problems.”  Except that she hasn’t.  Ms. Becchi is a DC lobbyist who has donated to the Democrats.  Hey, we get that lobbyists do that kind of thing, but let’s not call it conservative

Nobody has seen Ms. Becchi testifying in Trenton, or providing information to legislators, or even returning telephone calls from those interested in finding out more about her “organization”.  Cynics would say that it is nothing more than a front – a cover for her personal ambition to run for Congress.  This is something she openly explored against incumbent Congressman Leonard Lance (R-07) a year ago, with her “grassroots” organization forming a kind of parentheses between that and her expected formal announcement for 2020.

But as far as labeling her a “conservative” – we don’t really know where she stands on big government and taxes, leaving aside her unknown positions on abortion, the Second Amendment, and illegal immigration.  So who is trying to fool who here?

Finally, AFP’s list is memorable because of the genuine conservatives – four pillar conservatives – that it leaves out.  Champions like Marie Tasy and Christine Flaherty and Rev. Mandy Leverett… they are fighting to maintain the value of human life, to recognize the threshold of fetal pain, to end the trafficking of human beings and the sexual exploitation of women and children.  Of course, in today’s cash register world of “new industries” like pot and such, none of that matters – except that it does matter to conservatives, and there are a great many of us.

Also dissed were Freeholder Deborah Smith of Morris County – a great advocate for the Second Amendment – and incoming Sussex County Freeholder Dawn Fantasia who took down an incumbent Freeholder by winning 63% of the vote!  Nobody who made AFP’s list ever beat an incumbent.  Why are conservative winners ignored and pot pushers lauded as “conservatives”?   And how about an operative like Kelly Hart, the executive director of the Sussex County Republican Committee.  A four pillar conservative who actually won for Bob Hugin by more than was expected – outperforming everywhere but receiving scant recognition for it.  Obviously, there is a “cool girls” table, just as in high school, and some are not part of it… no matter how much they actually WIN elections. 

So in future, be a bit more judicious in who you label “conservative.”  Be honest with voters.  Stop telling them that you are something you’re not. 

Yes, we expect to hear arguments from pro-abortion, mushy on illegal immigration, soft-on-the-Second Amendment types who claim that they “feel” they are conservative.  But isn’t that just the times we live in?  We’ve all heard of gender-fluidity… well, these people are ideologically fluid.  And just as our chromosomes determine whether we are male or female, how we stand on the four pillars make us conservative – or something else.

Hey, don’t worry.  Not being conservative doesn’t make you a “bad” person.  And it doesn’t mean that you don’t hold conservative points of view on this issue or that.  You can still work with conservatives.  It just means that you recognize that you don’t come from the same ideological place that conservatives do.  And in your heart, you already know that, so let’s cut the bull and get honest with the voters.  Restoring their faith in the labels politicians apply to themselves will perhaps restore some measure of trust… for when the very words people use to describe themselves have no integrity, what confidence can voters have in anything?

The false narrative of Mikie Sherrill and Lisa Bhimani

In November 2017, three members of the so-called “Resistance” held a press conference to condemn the tax cut plan of President Donald Trump.  They were Mikie Sherrill, a resident of Montclair and then a candidate for Congress in District 11; Lisa Bhimani, a medical doctor and today a candidate for the Assembly in District 25; and Kellie Doucette, who has just been given a congressional staff job by Congresswoman-Elect Sherrill.

At their press conference, the three “resisters” spoke on behalf of the state’s “middle class” and claimed that Trump and the Republicans were only out to help “big corporations and the ultra-wealthy”.  They acted as though they were representative of the families who get by on the median-income of Northwest New Jersey. We now know, in the cases of Mikie Sherrill and Lisa Bhimani, it was all an act. Both Sherrill and Bhimani are rich.  They are establishment members of the One Percent.

But what about Kellie Doucette?  She spoke as if she were a working mom, pinching every penny.

Doucette has just been appointed to be Mikie Sherrill’s “face” in Sussex and Morris Counties.  So who is she?

Well, it turns out that Kellie Doucette had a very bottom-line reason for opposing the Trump tax cuts.  Doucette is a transplant to New Jersey from Bermuda, where her husband, John P. Doucette, is the President and CEO of the Reinsurance Division of Everest Re Group Ltd., a publicly traded reinsurance company headquartered in Bermuda.  The corporation describes itself this way:

“Everest Re Group, Ltd. is a Bermuda holding company that operates through the following subsidiaries: Everest Reinsurance Company provides reinsurance to property and casualty insurers in both the U.S. and international markets. Everest Reinsurance (Bermuda), Ltd., including through its branch in the United Kingdom, provides reinsurance and insurance to worldwide property and casualty markets and reinsurance to life insurers… Additional information on Everest Re Group companies can be found at the Group’s web site at www.everestregroup.com.”

It turns out that the Trump tax cuts helped American companies at the expense of off-shore companies, like those based in Bermuda.  This is from a website maintained by Bermuda (www.bermuda-online.org):

2017. December 21.  US tax reforms approved this week by the US Congress will be “credit negative” for the Bermuda re/insurance market, Fitch Ratings says. The US credit rating agency added that it expected the tax reforms, which will take effect from January 1, to benefit US reinsurers at the expense of Bermudian and other international reinsurers serving the US. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will cut the US corporate tax rate to 21 per cent from 35 per cent, reducing Bermuda’s tax advantages over US rivals, and a new tax on premiums ceded by US insurers to foreign affiliated reinsurers will be levied.

2017. December 18. Bermuda-based reinsurers are weighing restructuring options in response to US tax reform legislation that could be signed by President Donald Trump as early as this week and come into effect by the start of next year. Tax expert Will McCallum said that the island’s major industry will see its cost of doing business going up when the reform takes effect and some companies will likely have to relocate hundreds of millions of dollars of capital to the US.

According to public SEC filings, John Doucette was paid $2,557,414 in 2017.  That’s $49,181.03 a week – that’s $10,000 more than a Deputy Sheriff makes a YEAR in Sussex County!  

Hey… is this “Resistance” movement beginning to feel more like a “counter-revolution” to you too?  A long-suffering working class, under-represented in Congress and the Legislature, screwed-over by BOTH political parties votes for Obama in 2008 (and is promptly screwed again) then in its pain and desperation turns to Trump in 2016… and now the “Resistance” has come, to put us all back in our place!

In his book, White-Collar Government: The Hidden Role of Class in Economic Policy Making, Duke University's Nick Carnes points out that while upwards of 65 percent of citizens are "working class" and 54 percent are employed in a blue-collar occupation, just 2 percent of the members of Congress and 3 percent of state legislators held blue-collar jobs at the time of their election.  How about some diversity?

Donald Trump's campaign saw through the false political divide of Democrat and Republican to the vast economic and social divide that is the truer measure of America today.  Authors as diverse as George Packer of the New Yorker (The  Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America) to Charles Murray (Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010) to Chris Hedges (Days of Destruction Days of Revolt) to David Brooks (BoBos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There) have written about this, with Brooks actually employing Donald Trump as an example of what the "new upper class" finds unfashionable.  

And to counter this revolution, we have a One-Percenter “Resistance” made up of the likes of Mikie Sherrill, Lisa Bhimani, and Kellie Doucette.  

Congresswoman-Elect Mikie Sherrill wants Kellie Doucette to come into Sussex County and tell us how we should live.  The Congresswoman has sent Doucette to “feel our pain.” But there’s a problem with this… and it’s Kellie Doucette.

Just how insulated from the reality of the working-class is Doucette?  Well, when she moved from Bermuda to New Jersey, she settled in Chatham, a town with pretty good schools… but apparently, not good enough, because she sends her kids to boarding school in Delaware.  And not just any old boarding school… no way.

When Hollywood is looking for a boarding school that just oozes establishment wealth and privilege, they turn to Saint Andrew’s School, situated on 2200 acres in Middletown, Delaware.  You will remember seeing this well-appointed institution and its lush grounds from the Robin Williams film, Dead Poets Society, or from The West Wing, when they wanted to show what a really posh prep school looked like.  Yep, this is one posh school that Kellie Doucette sends her kids to… fall tuition for 2018-19 will set you back a cool $60,470 (per student).  

Yep, tell that to the working families of Ogdensburg – with a per capita income of just $29,447 – next time you are in Sussex County.  Hey, forget about feeling our pain, folks like you are our pain.

But Kellie Doucette has a solution for people who once had good-paying blue-collar jobs but who now must make do with under-employment, working two or three part-time jobs to make ends meet… abortion.

Kellie Doucette sits on the Board of an organization called Ibis Reproductive Health, and serves on their Finance Committee.  Ibis provides her biography:

“Kellie Doucette began her career in the health policy field, and worked for over ten years as an actuary in the individual disability and long-term care reinsurance markets in the United States and Bermuda. However, in 2016, she shifted her focus to the political sphere, first as a founding member of Chatham Moms for Change, and then in 2017 as the campaign manager for a local political campaign.  Kellie is currently the Constituency Director working with a congressional campaign in New Jersey’s 11th district, managing the constituency outreach for what has become one of the top watched congressional campaigns and races in the country this election cycle.

Kellie received her AB in Economics from Harvard in 1992 and completed her Associateship of the Society of Actuaries (ASA) in 1999. Kellie is also a member of the Board of Trustees of St. Andrew’s School in Delaware, of which she is a proud alumna and current parent, serving as Chair of the Advancement Committee and a member of the Finance Committee.” 

Ibis is all about abortion.  Its website makes Planned Parenthood look like a bunch of cautious moderates.  It operates several separate websites targeted to potential “client groups” – such as http://www.laterabortion.org/

Ibis even has a website aimed at teenagers with epilepsy, in which it promotes sterilization as a “birth control” option.  No kidding… here, check it out… http://girlswithnerve.com/birth-control/birth-control-options/

Lisa Bhimani Twitter.png

These people are off-the-hook.  Establishment moes and moettes who think they know better because they were well-born or have figured out a way to rig the system in their favor.  Now they want to masquerade as “comrades” and lead a “revolution” that will secure their fortunes and attitudes and leave America and its working people in the dust.  Mikie Sherrill got over on us this year, now Lisa Bhimani is trying for next year.

Are we going to let them get away with it again?

Webber's clone lost in LD26, spin won't change that.

There has been a big effort to re-write the history of what just happened in the Republican primary in Legislative District 26.  The origins of the battle just concluded there go back a few years, to when Daryn Iwicki was running Americans for Prosperity (AFP) in New Jersey. 

Then, things were well on the way to securing AFP's support for increasing the users tax on gasoline in order to end the disastrous cycle of debt and borrowing to fund basic repair and maintenance for the state's transportation system.  After 28 years without an adjustment for inflation -- and 25 years since the revenue from the gas tax produced enough to fund the state's transportation needs -- by 2015, the state was collecting just $750 million from the gas tax while incurring an annual debt cost of $1.1 billion.  Something had to be done.

Senator Steve Oroho (LD24) and others had the idea of getting rid of the estate tax as part of a deal to address the imminent bankruptcy of the state's Transportation Trust Fund (TTF), which funds most of the state's transportation needs.   One of those others was Assemblyman Jay Webber (LD26), who famously advocated such a deal in an opinion piece published in the Star-Ledger on October 14, 2014.  Its title was "Fixing transportation and taxes together." 

Assemblyman Webber advocated raising the gas tax to end the debt cycle and fund the TTF, while offsetting that tax increase with cuts to other taxes.  He zeroed in on the estate tax:

"NEW JERSEY leaders are grappling with three major problems: First, New Jersey has the worst tax burden in the nation. Two, New Jersey's economy suffers from sluggish growth. And third, our state's Transportation Trust Fund is out of money. There is a potential principled compromise that can help solve all of them.

Of the three problems, the Transportation Trust Fund has been getting the most attention lately, and for good reason: It's broke. There is just no money in it to maintain and improve our vital infrastructure. Without finding a solution, we risk watching our roads and bridges grow unsafe and unusable and hinder movement of people and goods throughout the state. That, of course, will exacerbate our state's slow economic growth.

...we should insist that if any tax is raised to restore the TTF, it be coupled with the elimination of a tax that is one of our state's biggest obstacles to economic growth: the death tax. By any measure, New Jersey is the most extreme outlier on the death tax, with worst-in-the-nation status...

New Jersey's death tax is not a concern for the wealthy alone, as many misperceive. We are one of only two states with both an estate and inheritance tax. New Jersey's estate-tax threshold of $675,000, combined with a tax rate as high as 16 percent, means that middle-class families with average-sized homes and small retirement savings are hit hard by the tax.

It also means the tax affects small businesses or family farms of virtually any size, discouraging investment and growth among our private-sector job creators. Compounding the inequity is that government already has taxed the assets subject to the death tax when the money was earned. Because of our onerous estate and inheritance taxes, Forbes magazine lists New Jersey as a place "Not to Die" in 2014.

That's a problem, and it's one our sister states are trying hard not to duplicate. A recent study by Connecticut determined that states with no estate tax created twice as many jobs and saw their economies grow 50 percent more than states with estate taxes. That research prompted Connecticut and many states to reform their death taxes. New York just lowered its death tax, and several other states have eliminated theirs.

The good news is that New Jersey's leaders finally are realizing that our confiscatory death tax is a big deal. A bipartisan coalition of legislators has shown its support for reforming New Jersey's death tax..."

Unfortunately, the leadership at AFP changed and decided to become part of a political strategy advocated by some GOP Senators.  This strategy argued that the gas tax was a game-changer that would result in a backlash that the GOP could harness to achieve power, much in the way they had in 1991-93.  Extensive polling by a well-respected survey research firm was produced in support of what by now had become a certainty in their minds.  The gas tax was a "third rail" (they said) that would end the career of any Republican foolish enough to vote for it and that would propel the GOP into majority status.

When the time came for Jay Webber to be counted as part of a bipartisan coalition to get the deal done, he couldn't be counted on.  Jay got scared off by AFP and people like NJ101.5's Bill Spadea.   Webber began to enthusiastically attack those who did what he advocated doing only a short time before.  One of those was his running mate, Assemblywoman BettyLou DeCroce. 

DeCroce found herself cut off from Webber and running alone -- facing two "anti-gas tax" opponents who made no bones about who they were targeting:  Assemblywoman BettyLou DeCroce.  Both opponents were Morris County Freeholders with generally conservative records.  One, Freeholder Hank Lyon, specifically identified with Assemblyman Webber and shared many of the same supporters, in addition to the same issues-grid and talking points.  Like Webber, Lyon billed himself a "movement conservative" despite the fact that the father of the modern conservative movement, Ronald Reagan, had not only endorsed the gas tax as a user tax -- he had doubled it as President.

In the end, Freeholder Lyon -- Assemblyman Webber's "clone" -- came up short. 

While some have noted the involvement of non-public, blue-collar, union money in the LD26 race, they neglect to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of prime radio time spent driving up the negatives of the "gas tax" and building momentum to specifically turn out of office legislators who voted for it.  The FCC is currently doing an analysis of the time spent on this campaign and its fair market value.  Add to this the cost of the petroleum lobby's efforts -- in particular AFP -- and we soon see that the working men and women were once again out-spent by corporate interests.

In closing, let us remind our readers that the most effective advertisement used against the Republican ticket in 2008 wasn't reported on any campaign finance or disclosure report.  It was simply a series of commercial broadcasts -- political attack ads, masquerading as comedy.

Cesaro (after 7 mos. ineligible): Glad somebody caught it?

Are you kidding us?

The people who run a whole bunch of towns hire an attorney who is on the ineligible list, that attorney handles a bunch of cases while officially "ineligible," and the best that attorney can come up with is a variation of that classic Bill Clinton line:  "Mistakes were made."

Wikipedia has a whole entry on this example of political doubletalk:

"Mistakes were made" is an expression that is commonly used as a rhetorical device, whereby a speaker acknowledges that a situation was handled poorly or inappropriately but seeks to evade any direct admission or accusation of responsibility by not specifying the person who made the mistakes. The acknowledgement of "mistakes" is framed in an abstract sense, with no direct reference to who made the mistakes. A less evasive construction might be along the lines of "I made mistakes" or "John Doe made mistakes." The speaker neither accepts personal responsibility nor accuses anyone else. The word "mistakes" also does not imply intent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made

Kudos to old "Maxie" Max Pizarro over at InsiderNJ who got Assembly candidate and Morris County Freeholder John Cesaro to speak on the record:

“It was a clerical error and it was 100% fixed,” Cesaro told InsiderNJ. “I spoke to the people down at the organization as soon as I found out about this, and as of this afternoon, the problem was resolved. I want to thank my opponent for bringing it to my attention.”

Somebody has some big balls!

The problems are just beginning.  The failure by those local governments to ensure that John Cesaro was eligible to practice law could pose serious problems for those towns.  The outcome of any case in which Cesaro served as a prosecutor or public defender could now be called into question by those involved.  They could all be subject to motions to vacate, or requests for a new trial.  Any party dissatisfied with an outcome could bring such a motion.  This could end up costing these towns big -- and leave property taxpayers with a enormous bill.

In case, you missed what this is about, here's the skinny:  An October 19, 2016 order by the New Jersey State Supreme Court, reflected in a search of the New Jersey Attorney Index, notes that attorney John Cesaro has been administratively ineligible to practice law in New Jersey since October 21, 2016 for failure to maintain compliance with the requirements of Rule 1:28A-2(d). 

Cesaro-courts.jpg

Who ever knew that John Cesaro was such a wild man?  And Cesaro certainly works for a lot of municipalities:

Cesaro-ethics.jpg

The local property taxpayers of these towns should invest in some soothing ointment.  By the time this is all over, they are going to need it.

Stay tuned...

John Cesaro is politically correct but legally "ineligible"

If you want to know what is wrong with New Jersey, just wrap your mind around this:  Municipalities will jump through hoops to make sure that the attorneys they hire are compliant with politically correct affirmative action mandates, but they will not make sure that the attorneys they hire are eligible to practice law in New Jersey.  No kidding.

Take the case of John Cesaro, a Freeholder in Morris County and candidate for the State Legislature.  Cesaro holds a whole lot of jobs that require an active law license, as his personal financial disclosure statements make clear:

The municipalities that hire Freeholder Cesaro make him sign disclosures that bind him to upholding... "county employment goals determined by the Affirmative Action office..." and to give written notice of this to "employment agencies, placement bureaus, colleges, universities, labor unions..."

A great many paragraphs are devoted to these concerns:

But apparently, maintaining an up-to-date license to practice law is not a concern in New Jersey, because nobody seems to make you sign a disclosure about that.

http://www.njcourts.gov/notices/2016/n161021a.pdf

https://portal.njcourts.gov/webe5/AttyPAWeb/pages/AttorneyStatusDefinitions.pdf

An October 19, 2016 order by the New Jersey State Supreme Court, reflected in a search of the New Jersey Attorney Index, notes that attorney John Cesaro has been administratively ineligible to practice law in New Jersey since October 21, 2016 for failure to maintain compliance with the requirements of Rule 1:28A-2(d).  The failure by these local governments to ensure that Cesaro was eligible to practice law could pose serious problems for those towns.

The outcome of any case in which Cesaro served as a prosecutor or public defender could now be called into question by those involved.  They could all be subject to motions to vacate, or requests for a new trial.  Any party dissatisfied with an outcome could bring such a motion.  This could end up costing these towns big -- and leave property taxpayers with a enormous bill.

Stay tuned...

Did Hank Lyon break NJ Election Law again?

Everyone remembers how Hank Lyon won a seat on the Morris County Freeholder Board.  A late infusion of cash from a corporation controlled by his father -- an infusion allowed because of an election law loophole that says if a candidate still lives at home with his parents, their money is treated as if it was the candidate's own money.

D. Use of Personal FundsUse of a candidate’s personal funds on behalf of his or her campaign must be deposited into the campaign depository and must be reported as either contributions or loans to the campaign in the same manner as all other contributions or loans. If the candidate intends to be reimbursed fully or partially for personal funds used on behalf of his or her campaign, then the funds must be reported both as a loan and as an outstanding obligation to the campaign if still outstanding at the end of the reporting period. Once a candidate’s personal funds are reported as contributions, the funds cannot be later characterized as loans and be repaid to the candidate. There is no limit to the amount of personal funds a candidate may contribute or lend to his or her own campaign (except for publicly funded gubernatorial candidates). See Gubernatorial Public Financing Program Manual for more information.  Also, a corporation, of which one hundred percent of the stock is owned by the candidate, or by the candidate’s spouse, child, parent, or sibling residing in the candidate’s household, may make contributions without limit to a candidate committee established by that candidate, or to a joint candidates committee established by that candidate.

That infusion of corporate cash was improperly reported.  A judge overturned a close election, a lawsuit followed, another judge overturned the first decision, while an appeal wasn't pursued after the opposing candidate received a gubernatorial appointment.   Lyon's campaign still owes a huge amount of money to this corporation: 

But apparently, this large infusion of corporate cash is only legal while Hank Lyon and his father reside in the same household.  So we find it strange that Freeholder Hank Lyon is so reticent about providing his legal address on personal financial disclosure statements as required by law:

And the financial disclosure statement he submitted to the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (NJELEC) claims his father's address as his own:

And yet, sloppily, Freeholder Hank Lyon's biography on his official Morris County website page provides this conflicting information:

"He is a lifelong resident of Morris County, specifically the Towaco section of Montville Township, where he was a member of the Montville Housing Committee.  He now lives in Parsippany."

What is up with this guy?

Lyon's father was his Freeholder campaign's treasurer and its principal financier.  The lawyer who won the case for him was an alumnus of the Brett Schundler for Governor campaign and a movement conservative.  Lyon tried to screw him:

Lawyer seeks $162,000 from Morris County Freeholder Hank Lyon

Bottom of Form

Morris County Freeholder William “Hank” Lyon has been accused of owing his former lawyer $162,000 in unpaid legal bills while Lyon also is battling with the state over alleged campaign violations.

“What a worm,”  said attorney Sean Connelly about his former client, Lyon. “We never expected to be in this position. We won precisely how we said we would win.”

Lyon, a Montville resident, did not return several calls for comment and an email to his freeholder address.

Connelly and the law firm of Barry, McTiernan and Wedinger of Edison represented Lyon during a nine-month court battle that ended up with Lyon winning the freeholder seat.

Lyon had won the 2011 Republican primary by four votes over Freeholder Margaret Nordstrom of Washington Township.  Nordstrom sued and won, gaining her seat back.

Lyon appealed the ruling and a state appeals court ruled in his favor in February 2012 and removed Nordstrom from the position. Lyon later won the freeholder post at a special election in November 2012.

Connelly said that after Lyon refused mediation and other offers to settle, the firm finally filed the suiton June 13 in Superior Court in Middlesex County against Lyon and his father, Robert A. Lyon, both of Montville, and their organization, “Lyon for Conservative Freeholder.” Connelly said Lyon has asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit.

Connelly said that before the court action, he had told Lyon that the lawsuit would be very costly.

“They said they were going to fund this to the end,” Connelly said.

The legal effort included extensive court representations and $18,000 for transcripts.

“We filed motions upon motions upon motions,” Connelly said. “It tied up my practice for six months.”

Connelly said his firm has offered several discounts on the outstanding legal bills.  “They kept ignoring us,” Connelly said. “We offered them great terms to pay over time.”

Connelly also said he filed the lawsuit in Middlesex County in an effort to limit publicity in Morris County.

“I don’t want to embarrass him,” he said. “I want to get paid.”

Connelly said the freeholder avoided being served with the lawsuit summons, forcing him to hire a professional toserve him at Lyon’s freeholder office.

Connelly said he also named Lyon’s father, Robert, in the lawsuit because the elder Lyon initially had agreed to pay the legal bills.

Connelly said he believes Lyon and his family have significant assets, including real estate holdings and restaurants.

Lyon’s income includes $24,375 a year as a freeholder. He also works with his father in the family’s business, which owns four restaurants, including Qdoba Mexican Grill restaurants and Maggie Moo’s ice cream parlors.

Election Violations

The N.J. Election Law Enforcement Commission also has accused Lyon of four violations of campaign finance laws during the 2011 Republican primary. Each violation could result in a maximum $6,800 fine.

The same alleged violations were cited by Superior Court Assignment Judge Thomas Weisenbeck when he ruled against Lyon and in favor of Nordstrom.

The commission names Lyon and his father who was the campaign treasurer.

One alleged violation involves a $16,000 loan made to the campaign a week before the primary but not reported until July 8. The state says that because the contribution was more than $1,200, it should have been reported within 48 hours.

Another alleged violation occurred when Lyon and his father certified the information on the loan and campaign report was correct but that they changed it in a subsequent report. Initially, Lyons reported that he had made the loan but it was later changed to identify Robert Lyon as the contributor, the state said.

Additionally, the state claims the information about the contribution was submitted after the June 27 deadline.

Further, the complaint says that $16,795 in expenditures were listed on July 8 but were due on June 27.

(Editor Phil Garber, December 11, 2013, newjerseyhills.com)

The Lyon family operates a group of interconnected corporate entities out of the same office and same post office box they share with Hank Lyon's political campaign -- Post Office Box 193, 20 Indian Hill Road, Towaco, New Jersey.

Stay tuned...

How the "gas tax" became a tool of the Alt-Right

There is a political battle shaping up in Morris County between two incumbent Republican elected office holders.  One, a county freeholder, is a young idealist, who decided on the political life before he was scarcely out of childhood.  The other, a state legislator, came to elected politics later in life, after the death of her husband, having long played a secondary role serving constituents, in addition to those of wife and mother.   The county freeholder wants to advance.  The state legislator is in his way.

The lever the freeholder is looking to use to displace the legislator is her vote on something that has become known as "the gas tax."

The phrase "no gas tax" is thrown around by some the way "no guns" is by others.  Both are cynical appeals to raw emotion, designed to replace the reasoning process with the red haze of anger.  Those who use it conjure anger so that they can direct it as hate towards their targets.

George Orwell warned against such simplistic "renunciations," which he found were a commonplace of "perfectionist" ideologies.  Orwell sought to unmask them as "simple bids for power" served up for consumption by those who cannot accept the inherent imperfections of the world-- or in Orwell's words, "solid earth."  He warned against the "totalitarian tendency" of movements like anarchism and pacifism which aim to establish purity of motive as the sole basis for political action.  Orwell wrote:

"For if you have embraced a creed which appears to be free from the ordinary dirtiness of politics -- a creed from which you yourself cannot expect to draw any material advantage -- surely that proves you are in the right?  And the more you are in the right, the more natural that everyone else should be bullied into thinking likewise."

Of course, the operative word here is "appears."  Readers of Animal Farm will recall the pigs' diktat that "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."  The "purity of motive" evaporates with the accumulation of political power.

By its very nature, representative democracy is not a pure undertaking.  The founders of our Republic saw it as a struggle between competing interest groups, which shifted based on the issue at hand and changed over time.  The process was meant to be slow, deliberative, so that emotional appeals to mob psychology (and its attendant vice, mob violence) would not carry the day, under cover of law.  Those who claim to hate "compromise" are really telling us that they hate representative democracy.  That they hate the Republic.

Today our Republic is under assault from the unbridled emotions of the Far-Left and Alt-Right.  In place of compromise, they preach "totalism" -- an unAmerican sin warned against by that great civil rights activist and author, Lillian Smith, who wrote:

“We must avoid the trap of totalism which lures a man into thinking there is only one way, one answer, one option, and that others must be forced into this One Way, and forced into it Now.”

And so we come to that curious phrase, "the gas tax."

In the first place, there was no vote on something called "the gas tax."  It never happened.  The vote was actually on a Tax Reform bill numbered S-2411/A-12 that included five tax cuts and an increase in the tax on gasoline. 

S-2411/A-12 was the result of more than two years of negotiations between Republicans and the majority Democrats who control both Chambers of the Legislature.  Those negotiations were conducted under pressure, with the knowledge that in modern times no political party has controlled the Governor's office for more than eight years.  Republicans are now into their eighth year.

The Republican negotiators, led by Senator Steve Oroho and Assembly Leader Jon Bramnick, understood that all that stood in the way of the Democrat majority imposing a 40-cent increase on the gas tax -- with NO tax cuts -- was Republican Governor Chris Christie.  They understood that the clock was ticking.

This was real world stuff.  Not the theoretical perfection preached on Facebook by people who have never been to Trenton, have never participated in the legislative process (by testifying or anything else), and whose biggest negotiation had to do with who was going to sit next to Old Uncle George at Thanksgiving.

Though always-outnumbered, Oroho and Bramnick negotiated a package of tax cuts worth $1.4 billion that included the following:

- A tax cut on retirement income that means most New Jersey retirees will no longer pay state income tax.  This tax cut is worth about $2,000 annually to the average retiree.

- Elimination of the Estate Tax.  This protects family farms and small businesses from being forced to choose between paying taxes or closing and laying-off workers.

- Tax cut for veterans.  Honorably discharged active duty, guard, and reserve veterans now get an additional $3,000 personal income tax deduction.

- Tax credit for low-income workers.  Worth $100 annually to the average worker.

- Sales tax cut.  Worth another $100 annually to the average consumer.

- Property tax relief.  The legislation doubled the amount going to county and municipal governments to repair roads and bridges and so offset property tax increases.

So S-2411/A-12, the Tax Reform legislation -- the bill some people simply call "the gas tax" -- actually cuts taxes by $1.4 billion. 

And that is why leading conservative organizations have praised the passage of the tax cuts in S-2411/A-12.  The Tax Foundation -- since 1937, America’s leading independent, conservative, pro-business tax policy think tank -- gave Senator Steve Oroho an award for negotiating the tax cuts in S-2411/A-12. 

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) noted that the tax cuts will save taxpayers $1.4 billion -- with the repeal of the estate tax saving taxpayers $320 million alone.  AFP called the tax cuts a "big win," a "big accomplishment,"  and a "victory."  Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) issued a statement noting how S-2411/A-12 "abolished the state death tax, cut the state sales tax and reduces income taxes on retired New Jersey voters."  ATR called it "a victory for taxpayers."  Forbes magazine weighed in, calling the tax cuts one of the "5 best state and local tax policy changes of 2016" nationwide. 

So there's $1.4 billion in sugar.  How about the medicine?

The "medicine" in the Tax Reform legislation was a 23-cents a gallon increase in the tax on gasoline -- negotiated down from the originally discussed 40-cents a gallon increase.   

By any objective standard, this "medicine" was long overdue. 

The gas tax is a classic "user tax."  This is a tax imposed on someone who chooses to access a service or facility.  With a user tax, someone pays for something he or she wants and receives what he or she has paid for.  So if you want to use New Jersey's roads and bridges, you pay for them through a tax on gasoline.

Conservatives believe that user taxes represent a "fair exchange" and that they differ from other taxes, which are paid by force or coercion and do not necessarily go towards a specific service or facility that someone actually uses or benefits from.  Property taxes are largely used to fund public education, regardless of whether or not the taxpayer has children using the public education system.  Property tax is not a user tax.  Conservatives view "progressive" taxation -- such as a graduated income tax -- as the most pernicious form of taxation, because it is a disincentive to hard work and a penalty for self-advancement.

In New Jersey, the user tax to fund the state's transportation infrastructure -- a fancy word for roads and bridges -- is the tax on gasoline (and other motor vehicle fuel).  This user tax had not been adjusted for inflation since 1988.  That's five Presidents ago -- back when Ronald Reagan was in office.

For the record, these are the adjustments for inflation that should have triggered increases in the gasoline tax, year-by-year, since 1988:  4.0% in 1988, 4.7% in 1989, 5.4% in 1990, 3.7% in 1991, 3% in 1992, 2.6% in 1993, 2.8% in 1994, 2.6% in 1995, 2.9% in 1996, 2.1% in 1997, 1.3% in 1998, 2.5% in 1999, 3.5% in 2000, 2.6% in 2001, 1.4% in 2002, 2.1% in 2003, 2.7% in 2004, 4.1% in 2005, 3.3% in 2006, 2.3% in 2007, 5.8% in 2008, zero in 2009, zero in 2010, 3.6% in 2011, 1.7% in 2012, 1.5% in 2013, 1.7% in 2014, zero in 2015, and .3% in 2016. 

But instead, New Jersey's gas tax remained at 14 1/2 cents since 1988.

Why?  Well, it's a matter of governance.  The gas tax was set about the time that New Jersey was suffering a bout of escalating property taxes that would end by leaving it the state with the highest property taxes in America.  The political class in New Jersey could have addressed the state's high property taxes by taking on the state's legal lobby -- in particular New Jersey's unelected Supreme Court.  It is the State Supreme Court, after all, who seized the revenue from the imposition of the state income tax and -- in a classic bait and switch -- used the revenue that was promised to go towards property tax relief to instead subsidize urban gentrification.

This expropriation by the Court of revenue that is properly under the purview of the elected Legislature has resulted in what we have today -- the most unequal state education funding formula in America.  One that sees half the state's impoverished children ignored, while the income tax money from poorer working families in rural and suburban New Jersey goes to subsidize the property taxes of wealthy professionals and rich corporations in places like Hoboken and Jersey City.  Meanwhile these poor working families pay the highest property taxes in America.

It is a corruption of natural law, undemocratic, and cries out to be addressed but the political class in New Jersey is so fearful of the legal lobby and its unelected Court, that there are not enough members of the elected Legislature willing to take on the battle.  Some have tried and notable among them have been Senators Mike Doherty and Steve Oroho, Assembly members Alison Littell McHose and Parker Space, and Freeholder Ed Smith of Warren County.  Smith scared the wits out of the legal community when he argued that because attorneys are officers of the Court, it was a conflict of interest for them to hold office in the elected Legislature. 

Instead of addressing its "highest in America" property taxes, New Jersey's political class played Santa Claus with the gas tax.  While every other state in America raised its gas tax to keep up with inflation, while President Ronald Reagan doubled the federal gas tax to keep up with inflation, New Jersey kept the gas tax cheap by burying its children and grandchildren under layer upon layer of debt.

From a conservative point of view, this was bad for three reasons: 

- First, the gas tax is a user tax and that is a fair way to tax, relying on debt instead of a user tax pushes the cost on to other, less fair, means of taxation such as the sales tax. 

- Second, because the TTF funded so many county and local projects (where the only alternative means of funding them are increased property taxes), the less stable the TTF became the more real the threat of a property tax explosion became.

- Third, because the gas tax wasn't adjusted for inflation for 28 years, the gas tax wasn't set at the proper level to collect revenue from those out-of-state drivers who used it.  In effect, out-of-state drivers were being subsidized by the taxpayers of New Jersey.

How big was the subsidy paid by New Jersey taxpayers so that out-of-state drivers could use their roads and bridges?  In just one year, that subsidy was $500 million.  If the gas tax had not been raised, that subsidy would have extended, over time, to $25 billion!

But it was very popular for the political class to tell voters that "you might have the highest property taxes but you have one of the lowest gas taxes."  If the subliminal message was "live in your car" then it has been a wild success, what with the state's high foreclosure rate. 

Of course, having one of the "lowest gas taxes" was a lie.  The roads and bridges dependant on the revenue from the gas tax weren't being maintained and the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) was left to tread water on borrowed money.  The gas tax wasn't, in reality, low -- the tax was just being passed on to the backs of their children and grandchildren, in the form of debt, to be paid later.

The last time the gas tax produced enough revenue to pay for New Jersey's transportation needs was in 1990.    Because of the debt that was allowed to accumulate, by 2015 the annual cost of that debt to taxpayers was $1.1 billion -- outstripping the $750 million revenue from the gas tax.  At the beginning of last summer, the TTF couldn't make its debt payments.  By the end of the summer, it was broke.

Everyone knew that something had to be done (1) because in a modern industrial society roads and bridges are pretty much a basic necessity, and (2) because without funding from the TTF, local governments would have to raise property taxes by an average of more than $500 a household just to make up for the lost aid to keep county and local roads safely maintained.  And if county and local governments failed to repair roads and bridges and allowed people to use them anyway, the eventual cost in litigation to cover the injuries sustained as the result could vastly outstrip the costs to maintain them in the first place.

And still many in the political class found themselves in a real dilemma.  Newer legislators asked older ones how did they let it get so bad and wanted to know why it was necessary to raise the gas tax by 23-cents in one whack.  The answer was simple:  The first 11-cents of the increase was needed just to cover the debt service on all that money the state had borrowed since 1990 to keep up the illusion that you could have something for nothing. 

It was most unbearable to hear these questions posed by those who had been around for a while -- people like Senators Ray Lesniak and Kip Bateman.  To see why the gas tax had to go up 23-cents a gallon they need only look into a mirror.  23-cents a gallon, all in one hit, is what you get when politicians suspend the iron rules of economics and tell people that they can have something for nothing.  This is what happens when you don't adjust the cost of something for inflation.  Any business would have gone bankrupt.

Enter the Alt-Right.

The history of radio and the first rise of totalitarian regimes is intertwined.  Radio was the means to reach and to incite truly "mass" audiences.  Broadcasting turned oddball regional movements into national and international powers. 

NJ 101.5 radio host Bill Spadea could be described as one of the founding fathers of the Alt-Right.  It will be recalled that it was Spadea -- way back in the early 1990's -- who urged the formation of a far-right alternative to the Republican Party.  And he did so, not from the bleachers, but as a prominent voice from within the GOP.  Spadea ran the College Republican National Committee.  In 1995, the Republican National Committee cut off all funding to Spadea's group after it paid for advertisements that attacked Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and suggested that the GOP be replaced by a party resembling what has today become known as the Alt-Right.

Bill Spadea was new to radio, having replaced the popular Jim Gearhart in November 2015.  He wanted to make a big splash, attract listeners, and increase revenue for the for-profit corporation that owns NJ 101.5.  That these goals merged seamlessly into his pre-existing ideology was, for Spadea, a happy case of serendipity. 

Spadea's radio show, the largest drive-time radio show in the central part of the state, was the means to get out his message.  He was ready to play impresario, but he needed a diva to be the face of the message.  First he road-tested the ever unreliable Senator Jennifer Beck.  But she was too independent and refused to take direction.  Meanwhile, Bill Spadea was stoking the fires of a renunciation with one-sentence policy prescriptions, preceded by a hashtag. 

Following the Alt-Right playbook, the message was vaguely populist, anti-government, and Nihilistic.  It offered no prescriptions on how to actually address any of the real problems in any meaningful way.  In place of policy it offered the anarchic slogan of "government-sucks."

To settle some personal scores, Spadea was able to focus anger against those members of the GOP who had failed to support his political ambitions for higher office -- a failed run for Congress in 2004 and for the Assembly in 2012 (the latter was such a bitter disappointment that he rarely mentions it).  Those who know him know that Bill Spadea nurtures grievances and never forgets.

Spadea's message was not anti-establishment.  Indeed, he trotted in a line of members of the GOP establishment who told him what he wanted to hear, and in return, he would lavish praise upon them.  Nobody had ever elected Bill Spadea to anything, but that didn't stop him from bestowing his blessing on actual elected officials, in the name of his "listeners" or "taxpayers" or "the people".

Far-Left legislators like Democrats Senator Ray Lesniak (American Conservative Union lifetime rating: 0%) and John Wisniewski (American Conservative Union lifetime rating: 0%) were welcomed by Spadea and received lavish praise for opposing the "gas tax" -- when what they were actually opposing was the Tax Reform bill S-2411/A-12 with its five tax cuts!   But that didn't matter to Spadea, who promptly anointed these lefties as "good guys."

Bill Spadea even scared some people who should have known better, like conservative Assemblyman Jay Webber.  It was Webber who advocated, in 2014, that New Jersey should increase the gas tax while "fixing transportation and taxes together."  Webber's prescription was to raise the gas tax, while offsetting that tax increase with cuts to other taxes -- and he specifically zeroed in on the estate tax.  But faced with a deluge of Alt-Right pressure, Webber got into line with the simplistic slogans of Spadea.  After all, who wants to get a primary from the Alt-Right?

Spadea was still searching for his diva when, last October, Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno abruptly reversed her formerly pro-Tax Reform position in order to embrace the Alt-Right sloganeering of Bill Spadea.  The manner in which a major establishment figure like the Lt. Governor was flipped into the Alt-Right net is instructive.  It had been very long in the making, with Spadea specifically targeting Guadagno immediately after getting his gig with NJ 101.5.

We will examine just how Bill Spadea flipped the Lt. Governor in our next installment.

Poll: Oroho strong re-elect, Phoebus upside-down

A recent survey of 425 likely Republican Primary election voters in New Jersey's 24th Legislative District throws cold-water on the attempt by certain political insiders to promote the candidacy of Gail Phoebus.  The poll, which was conducted before Phoebus announced that she was challenging incumbent Steve Oroho for the Senate seat, indicates that Oroho is in a strong position to be re-elected, while Phoebus would have work to do to hold on to her Assembly seat.

Here are snapshots taken directly from the poll's "toplines":

jc_poll.png

Phoebus is under water:

The poll was conducted by Magellan Strategies of Colorado, a nationally recognized polling firm that has conducted thousands of surveys for national and statewide candidates, congressional and legislative candidates, state and national party organizations, and business interest groups.  Legislative District 24 is made up of all of Sussex County, eleven towns in Warren County, and one town in Morris County.  Some of the other details in the survey include:

And in the Sussex County portion of the district, which makes up about 70 percent of the electorate, the survey indicates that the most popular local elected official by far is Sussex County Sheriff Mike Strada.

While the least popular elected official in Sussex County is the outgoing Freeholder Director, George Graham:

Phoebus' supporters -- primarily cabal of lawyers associated with the Morris County Improvement Authority's Sussex solar scam -- will have a difficult time selling her candidacy with numbers like these.  Jersey Conservative will be releasing more data as we receive it.

AFP is trying to confuse property taxpayers

Like the Reason Foundation, Americans for Prosperity (AFP) was founded by the owners of Koch Industries, a $115 billion global corporation that operates in 59 countries around the world.  Its core business is petroleum and it zealously protects that business, as one would expect it to.

AFP likes to portray itself as a "membership" organization, but unlike other membership organizations here in America, AFP's members don't get to vote on who leads its national and state organizations.  Those decisions are made for them by individuals closely connected with the owners of Koch Industries.   That means that AFP is essentially a lobby group, so we perfectly understand why it would rather see property taxes increased on every homeowner in New Jersey instead of a petroleum tax increase on products produced by Koch Industries.

Today, AFP sent out a very emotional press release about the $341 million boondoggle to repair Route 35.  We all agree that construction projects are targets for political corruption, inefficiencies, and over-regulation in New Jersey.  But we also know -- as AFP does -- that raising these issues does not solve the problem of how to fund road and bridge maintenance and repairs now that the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) is out of money.

Unlike many liberals, conservatives do not respond to mere emotional appeals like AFP's press release today.  We prefer to listen to a rational argument that appeals to our intellect. 

Yes, something needs to be done to address the political corruption, inefficiencies, and over-regulation of construction projects in New Jersey.  As a start, AFP might join with those of us who are trying to undo the gubernatorial order that killed the state's "fast-track" regulatory program that would speed up construction and save taxpayers' millions each year.  Now where is AFP on this cost-saving reform?  We would like to know.

For two years now a solar construction scandal has rocked northwest New Jersey (where AFP is based and where the group's leadership lives) with all the political corruption and boondoggle AFP could ask for -- but not a peep about it has come from AFP.  It is as if they were asleep, or perhaps the leaders of AFP don't read their local newspapers?  Of course, this construction project doesn't concern a product near and dear to the hearts of Koch Industries. 

Instead of making specific suggestions on how we can address the political corruption, inefficiencies, and over-regulation of construction projects in New Jersey, AFP has only one suggestion -- DON'T RAISE TAXES ON PETROLEUM PRODUCTS!  Now why would that be?

Here's what AFP isn't telling you.

The Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) collects money from the gas tax and then uses that money to maintain and repair state roads and bridges.  The TTF also sends money to local governments (counties and municipalities) so that they can afford to maintain and repair the roads and bridges that they own. 

The TTF is nearly bankrupt.  There will be no money for the maintenance and repair of the roads and bridges owned by the state AND there will be no money to send to local governments to maintain and repair their roads and bridges.

It's happening already.

Last month the town of Montville, in Morris County, went to the TTF for funding to repair a road.  It was turned down.  Note the shock of township leaders:

Due to the New Jersey Transportation Fund’s unfunded state, Canning said he saw something he had never seen in 25 years of working in government: a grant denial.

“There were 641 applications to the NJ Department of Transportation requesting more than $253 million of the $78.75 million available in municipal aide grant funds,” said Canning, “and they did not approve our Brittany Road project, therefore, all $650,000 will have to be self-funded.”

What that "will have to be self-funded" means is that the property taxpayers of Montville will be stuck paying for those repairs.   

As more and more local governments get turned down, their leaders will have a decision to make:  Either they raise property taxes on every homeowner and business to pay for the maintenance and repair of roads and bridges; or they allow those roads and bridges to fall into disrepair, and become unsafe. 

If local governments take the second option and allow roads and bridges to become unsafe, they will be left with just two choices:  Close those roads and bridges as they become unsafe, or accept that there will be lawsuits for negligence when people are injured or killed on those unsafe roads and bridges.  Of course, the legal bills and settlements for such lawsuits will also result in the need to raise property taxes -- so the taxpayer will lose either way.

Don't think it will happen?  Well, it already has. 

It took 145 victims, 22 children, 13 deaths, and one bridge collapse for the Legislature in Minnesota to finally raise the gas tax to fund road and bridge maintenance and repairs.  Of course, at that point they also had to pay out many millions more in hospital care, rehabilitation, on-going health care, and negligence settlements -- as well as totally reconstructing a bridge.

Do we really want to wait until we are burying children?

In the real world, we all know that when the money runs out, and the workers don't get paid, the repairs will stop. 

And then there's this to consider:  Right now, New Jersey taxpayers subsidize out-of-state drivers who use our roads.  If we do nothing, we will end up paying $11 billion over the next 25 years to subsidize out-of-state drivers.

Approximately one-third of gas tax revenues in New Jersey come from out-of-state drivers.  All property taxes come from the people of New Jersey.  So which do you think is the best way to pay for improvements to roads and bridges, an increase in the gas tax or an increase in property taxes?

Let us know how you feel.  Your thoughts and ideas are always welcome.