Is new Gottheimer campaign commercial a “hate crime”?

By Rubashov

Whenever he gets caught in some hypocrisy or in an outright lie, Congressman Josh Gottheimer tries to deflect criticism from average folks by accusing them of something terrible. It’s a trick Gottheimer picked-up from his former boss, Bill Clinton, who trashed the reputations of the women he forced himself upon.

Gottheimer calls his Right-of-Center critics “extremists” and accuses his Left-of-Center critics of “anti-Semitism”. It seems he has a pejorative for everyone.

Think back to January of this year, when he tried to pin the “anti-Semitism” label on the Left-of-Center Working Families Party. The New Jersey Globe reported it:

Assembly Speaker Pro-Tempore Gordon Johnson has asked the Bergen County Prosecutor to investigate a September 2021 incident where a protestor allegedly screamed “Jew” at Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-Wyckoff) as a possible hate crime.

In a speech at Rutgers University last month, Gottheimer claimed that a member of the Working Families Party hurled the anti-Semitic slur at him at a Glen Rock event with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo. Raimundo is backing up Gottheimer’s allegation.

Working Families state director Sue Altman said last month that her group reviewed footage from the protest and interviewed several participants.

“To be absolutely clear, if that ever happened at a WFP event, the person would have been rebuked instantly and asked to leave,” Altman said. “However, we do not believe Gottheimer’s explosive allegation ever occurred.”

Johnson wants the organization to dig deeper.

Well, the Times of Israel published a piece that dug so deep it got to the bottom of this so-called “hate crime”. It is written by Dr. Russell Miller, a research psychologist at the Graduate Center, City University of New York and adjunct assistant professor of Children and Youth Studies at Brooklyn College.

Dr. Miller is also a journalist who has published in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Rolling Stone, New York, Ha'aretz, and Corriere della Sera. Dr. Miller’s column is titled: “I called Josh Gottheimer a Jew – it wasn’t a slur.” Dr. Miller’s column begins:

A couple of weeks ago, David-Seth Kirshner, the rabbi of Temple Emanu-El, in Closter, New Jersey published a commentary here on the indisputable truth that even among the most well-meaning, compassionate, and socially engaged, there can be people who hate. His impetus? The charge by US Congressman. Josh Gottheimer that a progressive adversary, the Working Families Party, is sheltering an antisemite.

The piece rehashed Rep. Gottheimer’s claim that at a rally in September in support of “Build Back Better,” President Biden’s social services bill, a WFP member attacked the “reputable and respected Congressman” with the Jew-hating epithet “Jew.”

There’s only one problem. The claim is patently false – and Gottheimer almost certainly has to know that. Anyone following this phony blood libel would know it’s false. And how am I so certain it’s false? I’m the “attacker.”

The first time Gottheimer mentioned the supposed antisemitic attack was on December 13 at Rutgers University, three months after the fact. Since then, he’s speechified, fundraised and called in chits around the WFP’s alleged antisemitism. The US Secretary of Commerce signed on. A New Jersey state senator demanded a hate-crime investigation. The ADL announced, “we take him at his word.” Rabbi Kirshner came forward as character witness.

Meanwhile, the WFP scoured its ranks to find the offender. I was late to hear of this; I’m not a member. But as soon as I did, I contacted a reporter and “confessed” on a national podcast. That was four days before Rabbi Kirshner’s indictment of the WFP.

As I told that reporter, like Josh Gottheimer, I’m a Democrat and, as my grandmother would say, oich a yid – also a Jew. Gottheimer has to have known this all along. Rabbi Kirshner may not have, because the Congressman conveniently neglects to report the full sentence I spoke last September — at precisely the place and time he’s vouched the slur was slung. The moment was heated, so my reconstruction of the syntax may be off, but it was something like, “Josh, as a Jew, it’s a shanda that you’re blocking Build Back Better.”

That’s right, “a shanda,” as generations of Ashkenazic Jews have cried in Yiddish: A disgrace. That’s not Jew hating. That’s Jewish shaming. That was one Jew addressing another in a time-honored voice.

If Gottheimer heard “Jew,” he would have almost certainly heard “shanda.” If he heard “shanda,” he would have certainly known his attacker was anything but antisemitic.

Now, the record does show Gottheimer has memory issues. At Rutgers, he claimed several of us were jeering “Jew!” Subsequently, he revised his recollection to one. As a research psychologist, I can understand how, hit where it hurts, his mind might have reframed the scene. I can only assume my podcast appearance jogged his memory since his office has since refused comment. Meanwhile, it appears he’s buying Facebook ads to keep Rabbi Kirshner’s condemnation afloat.

As for the rabbi, in the worrisome week after Colleyville, he might well have missed my interview and subsequent coverage in the Jewish press. Odds are Gottheimer’s team, busy fibbing on Facebook, failed to brief him on my clarification, which surely would have brought him relief.

But by the time his piece went public, no informed observer could believe the Working Families Party, or even a stray antisemite, was the source of the telltale monosyllable.

You can access the entire column at the Times of Israel:

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/i-called-josh-gottheimer-a-jew-it-wasnt-a-slur/

Note how Gottheimer’s team appears to willfully misrepresent what was actually said in an effort to label someone “anti-Semitic”. As we will see, it works the same when Gottheimer is trying to label someone an “extremist”.

Gottheimer calls his Right-of-Center critics “extremists” and accuses his Left-of-Center critics of “anti-Semitism”. It seems he has a pejorative for everyone.

In Gottheimer’s latest campaign commercial, his team tries to label Frank Pallotta an "extremist" by using a quote he made in August of 2020 about the Oath Keepers group and then applying it to the actions of that group on January 6, 2021. Using this same tactic, would it be okay to apply the positive things many elected officials said about Democrat consutant Sean Caddle, as if is was commentary on him after he admitted to having someone murdered? Using the Gottheimer rule, it would be okay. So, maybe they will.

The Gottheimer team then claimed that GOP challenger Frank Pallotta used the term “manslaughter” to describe all abortion – when, in fact, Pallotta was describing the late-term, day-of-birth abortion laws supported by Gottheimer and signed into law in New Jersey by Governor Phil Murphy. Here is the exact statement, made by Pallotta, that the Gottheimer team used for their commercial:

“Advances in modern medical science expanded fetal viability even as politicians like Josh Gottheimer ignored science and pushed for laws that went in the opposite direction and essentially legalized manslaughter.

Roe v. Wade was founded on language that was nowhere in the Constitution, and it featured the usurpation of the elected legislatures' role in determining public policy by the unelected judiciary. We now have the opportunity for real bipartisan reform on the laws that regulate abortion. An opportunity to follow medical science in drafting those reforms.

Instead of following medical science, Congressman Gottheimer and his allies have pursued a wholly ideological agenda of more and more extreme abortion laws - including partial-birth abortion and abortion for any reason up until the moment of birth.”

Of course, Gottheimer and his campaign team are lying because they know that “partial-birth abortion and abortion for any reason up until the moment of birth” are unpopular and do not poll very well.

But the real shocker in the commercial is the Gottheimer team’s use of anti-Italian stereotypes in an attempt to conjure up the image of a Mafia crime figure. Darkening Pallotta’s image and using a photograph in which he is wearing dark glasses? We would object just as sternly if somebody used a photograph of a Jewish candidate wearing a yarmulke.

Remember how the state’s Democrats complained and hurled accusations of “hate” when then congressional challenger Andy Kim was stereotyped using the image of fish and a font associated with Asian restaurants? Would these Democrats have us believe that Italian-Americans are less worthy of their support?

So, is this commercial – paid for by Josh Gottheimer’s campaign and approved by him – a "hate crime"? Or is it simply a matter of poor judgment and poor taste?

Gottheimer denies Commissioners’ legal counsel at NJOHSP briefing.

On March 22nd Congressman Josh Gottheimer sent an invitation to the Sussex County Board of Commissioners to attend a “briefing” by the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness (NJOHSP) on “the latest domestic terror threats in our State.”

The invitation, signed by Congressman Gottheimer and on official stationery, did not contain the date and time for the briefing or the location at which it was to be held. It did contain this paragraph:

“I will follow up with specific details on the briefing with NJOHSP and look forward to working together to stop hate, domestic terror, and extremism in all forms.”

But Congressman Gottheimer never did follow up with specific details. According to InsiderNJ’s Fred Snowflack, he instead politicized the briefing, using it as a political hit piece on the Commissioners. On a March 25th InsiderNJ post, Snowflack wrote:

“Today, Gottheimer, whose 5th District includes most of Sussex County, released a letter he sent to the county commissioners on March 22.”

Despite Gottheimer’s attempt to use the briefing as the basis for a political attack, his congressional office was contacted by Sussex County Commissioner Chris Carney, a union worker with Local 825 of the Operating Engineers. Carney, who was selected to fill the remainder of Josh Hertzberg’s term and who is running this year for a full term on the Board, demanded that Gottheimer hold the briefing.

In response to Commissioner Carney, Gottheimer’s office sent a follow-up to the Board of Commissioners, slating the briefing for today at 12:30pm by Zoom. The Board responded that it would be attending, along with the Board’s special counsel. After initially agreeing to this arrangement, Gottheimer’s office contacted the Board to inform them that their attorney would not be allowed to hear the briefing.

Why?

Why would the Board’s attorney not be permitted to hear a briefing by the Director of the NJOHSP? Might he ask some difficult questions? Would his presence make it more difficult to smear the names of private citizens and open the participants up to civil suits? Would he provide some unfortunate clarification as to what is or isn’t an actual crime?

So many of the NJOHSP “incidents” involve “flyers, pamphlets, and signs” that promote “white supremacy”, “white nationalism”, “neo-Nazism”, and “hate” of various kinds. But is this a crime when anyone can purchase Mein Kampf, by Adolph Hitler, on Amazon.com. What is more Nazi than Mein Kampf? Does each purchase count as an “incident” or is it uncounted?

The truth is that any government agency can increase or decrease the number of “incidents” by defining or redefining them in a way that expands or contracts their numbers. Is this what’s going on?

And here is another curious thing about this briefing. In January, Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed Congressman Gottheimer to the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security. But this is the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness (NJOHSP) – a STATE agency that has nothing to do with Congress.

As a Congressman, Josh Gottheimer has no responsibility for or oversight of the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness (NJOHSP). He doesn’t vote on their budget – the STATE legislators who represent Sussex County do. In fact, Senator Steve Oroho and Assemblyman Hal Wirths are ranking members of their respective chambers’ budget committees. So why were they not invited to this briefing? Might they ask questions too?

Is this briefing anything more than political theater, for the benefit of a political ally, provided by the appointee of a Governor facing re-election? As such is it an abuse of power, a fraud, and a waste of taxpayers’ money?

We suggest a proper, academic review of the history of terrorism and the causes of extremism. One that does not whitewash the part played by the CIA and other intelligence agencies. It could be named in honor of that great liberal – a true, old-fashioned liberal – United States Senator Frank Church, Democrat of Idaho.

“In examining the CIA's past and present use of the U.S. media, the Committee finds two reasons for concern. The first is the potential, inherent in covert media operations, for manipulating or incidentally misleading the American public.
The second is the damage to the credibility and independence of a free press which may be caused by covert relationships with the U.S. journalists and media organizations.”

U.S. Senator Frank Church
(Veteran. Burma campaign. WWII)

Lonegan: GOPers who push "moderation" while cutting deals with Dems are an existential threat to our party.

An important and timely message from the father of New Jersey's conservative movement:

Fellow Republicans,

You all know me.

No matter what you think of me, you all know where I stand on the issues. Some of you might accuse me of being too unwavering, unwilling to compromise, but nobody has ever doubted where I'm coming from.

As we watch the Christie era in the rear-view mirror, we need to decide on what kind of party we intend to be. We need to chart a course for the road ahead.

That's very easy for someone like me. The course is free market conservatism, defending freedom at home, and our interests abroad. It is the message of our Republican Party Platform. Simple enough. If you call yourself a Republican, you should value Republican principles.

Unfortunately, that is not who is leading the Republican Party in Bergen County these days. There are too many who look to cut deals with the Democrats -- and not for idealistic policy aims -- but for their personal benefit. Their vision of the Republican Party is a defeatist one, where they seek to benefit from the crumbs swept from the Democrat table. The policies they advocate consist of slavishly mimicking a watered down version of the Democrats' own post-Western, post-Christian, anti-Freedom agenda.

You've probably heard it around the county, and around the state, that a conservative cannot win -- anything. The fact is that the only Republican to win statewide office in over twenty years was both Pro-Life and Pro-Second Amendment. The fact is that those Republicans who get the most votes in New Jersey are consistently the most conservative. The liberal wannabe Republicans can't turnout their base and those they want to convince have someone better to vote for -- a Democrat.

This "moderate" nonsense is like a religion with some of our so-called "leaders" -- those who practice the Janus-faced religion of being all things to all voters. Even though every study and every poll shows that they will not convince a Democrat to vote Republican in this starkly divisive climate, they hold true to the faith that turning-off a dozen conservatives is worth every liberal vote they pick-up.

The way forward is clear for 2018: Maximum Republican and conservative turnout. A full effort.

Of course, there are some within our party who are working against this. Some who are personally enmeshed with the Democrats. It's happening in other parts of the state as well. Democrats are playing in our primary. In every congressional battleground in the state, there is a former Democrat running as a Republican or a liberal Republican with Democrat-ties claiming to be a conservative. Every one.

They are there for one reason: To make us spend money so we won't have it to hit the Democrats in the General Election. Here in Bergen County, I am facing an opponent who was described by the Bergen Record as the "right hand man" to Democrat Sheriff Michael Saudino. Let's not forget that it was Saudino's feud with the Republican County Executive that lost us control of our county. Saudino, followed that up by joining Hillary Clinton and Josh Gottheimer on a ticket that crushed the BCRO. Through it all, my opponent remained employed by Sheriff Saudino, as his trusted consigliore, and actually started his campaign while still on the Democrat's payroll.

Now we all know where Sheriff Saudino stands on this election. He's backing fellow Democrat Josh Gottheimer for re-election this year. So are Mayors Harry Shortway of Vernon and Harry Shortway of Midland Park. They held an event for my opponent at their family bar in Passaic County. Did you follow that? They are endorsing Democrat Josh Gottheimer in the General Election but held an event to help my opponent in the Republican primary. Meanwhile, in a neighboring district, the insider-backed "Republican" candidate wouldn't tell a room full of Republicans how he voted for President in 2008 (Obama vs. McCain), 2012 (Obama vs. Romney), or 2016 (Clinton vs. Trump). And like my opponent, this fellow seems to be allergic to voting in a Republican primary.

Our party faces an existential threat from those who cut deals with Democrats and then preach the religion of "moderation" while pushing fake Republican candidates on us. We must resist them, whether they are well-meaning and stupid or slick and treacherous. It is time to use the Republican Party Platform and our conservative principles as the measure by which we judge our candidates. If some of our so-called "leaders" don't like that platform or our principles, they are free to leave the party and start their own. I, for one, am sick and tired of being dictated to by a small group of professional political "leaders" who are totally out of touch with the thoughts and views of most Republicans. It is time for them to go.

A party that knows what it is about, is a party that can convince people to get involved, contribute, and win. This holds true up and down our ticket. The message of lower taxes, less government, and individual freedom is a winning one. The Democrats' warmed-over socialism, leavened with coarse identity politics has, in the end, always lost.

Thank you for your time and I hope I will have your support to secure our primary in June and defeat the Democrats in November. If you have any insights you would like to share with me, please feel free to send me an email at steve@lonegan.com.

Thank you,
Steve Lonegan

Arizona politician who opposed religious freedom bill, endorses McCann

Candidate John McCann stumbled again today, rolling out the endorsement of the Arizona politician who opposed religious freedom .  McCann's campaign today announced that he has been endorsed by former Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. 

In 2014, Brewer became notorious for her flip flop on religious freedom.   As Governor, she vetoed legislation (SB-1062) that gave individuals and legal entities an exemption from state law if it substantially burdened their exercise of religion.

Brewer allowed government to force people to do things that run counter to their religious beliefs.  Brewer placed commerce above spirituality.  Despite SB-1062 being passed by a large majority in both houses of the Arizona legislature, Brewer vetoed the bill. 

This is just another indication of where the McCann campaign is heading.

John McCann hurt police officers. Read their stories.

A federal lawsuit filed last year contains the personal testimony of dozens of veteran law enforcement officers who fell victim to a power play by the Democrat Sheriff of Bergen County.  According to the Bergen Record, John McCann was the Democrat Sheriff's "right-hand man" and a major cause of what went down.  Many police officers had their lives changed.  Here are a few of their stories:

"In 2014 my wife and I decided to have our 2nd child even though there were talks of merging the Bergen County Police with the Sheriff's Department.  We both agreed that we could afford to make this life changing decision based on the fact that the merger specifically stated there would be no layoffs, and no decrease in pay.

We had purchased a smaller home, which needed improvements... We are not going to be able to make these improvements or expand our home due to the impending layoff or pay decrease.  In fact we may lose our home if these changes take place.

My wife and I were discussing the possibility of having a third child as recently as February of this year.  However this will not happen now because of these layoffs."

***

"In 2015, I got engaged.  In 2016, I got married and purchased a home.  In 2017, I welcomed another child into my family... I have a wife and two children, ages 6 and 3 months.  Now with the threat of a potential layoff, not only will my life be affected, but my family will be negatively affected as well."

***

"I have been employed by Bergen County as a Police Officer since July, 2004.  I have recently re-financed my 30 year mortgage to a 15 year mortgage due to the promise that the Sheriff, County Executive, and Freeholder Board made that my job was safe when they merged us.  I am also the caregiver to my elderly parents... If I am demoted, I will not be able to afford the extra payments that a 15 year mortgage brings as well as care for my parents in a way that they deserve."

***

"I can personally say the moral and pride I had as a County Police Officer has been stripped away and this entire process has affected me personally.  I never knew what it was like to go to work and be unhappy.  I've always loved my career and the organization I worked for.  There are often times I get sick to my stomach thinking of how the politicians have destroyed this place and everything it represented.  My mind is consumed with thoughts of whether or not I will be able to retire..."

*** 

"I am a single father of two children.  I have full custody of my children... I had financial plans in place to send my oldest daughter who is currently in high school to attend specific colleges she had picked out.  With this demotion I will no longer be able to pay for my daughter's college education..."

***

"In August of 1996 I joined what I believed was a dedicated profession and well known department... I joined the United States Marine Corps Reserve in 1982... I was activated in support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm... I retired with 20 years of service in 2003.

...I have made many life choices on the promises and assurance my family and I would be able to live without the threat of losing our home or not being able to afford the basic simple lifestyle we have had in our lives.  Upon the assurance of the County of Bergen, the politicians and the Bergen County Sheriff my family committed to providing an education for my son that now involves the payment of an incredible amount of education loans."

***

"I am currently a Police Officer with the Bergen County Sheriff's Department... I am also a United States Disabled Combat Veteran.  I served four and a half years with the 82nd Airborne Division, with a fifteen-month deployment to Iraq as an Infantryman... With the promise of job security, I continued my life as any other reasonable person would have.  I recently purchased a home and have plans to marry my longtime girlfriend, whom this layoff also affects tremendously..."

It's no wonder then that candidate John McCann is so agitated by questions regarding the accumulation of power by Democrat politicians (and the concurrent loss of power of local elected Republicans).

Did the McCann campaign lie to national Republicans?

The campaign of congressional candidate John McCann recently issued a press release claiming to have been placed "on the radar" by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC).  "On the radar" is the first designation in the NRCC's "Young Guns" program, which highlights "promising" candidates.

To get considered for this program and to obtain the "on the radar" designation, a candidate's campaign must first fill out a lengthy questionnaire and complete a background survey with questions like:

- If you are an attorney, please list the type of clients/nature of litigation (corporate, criminal defense, family, etc.) and any noteworthy cases that could potentially be relevant in a congressional campaign:

- Have you ever owned or run a business?

- If so, has this business ever been a part of any legal proceedings such as a suit, judgment, bankruptcy, etc.?

- Please list any history/problems with your business partners (bad breakups, criminal history, sanctions, significant lawsuits, etc.).

- Have you or your business ever had any tax warrants, liens, etc., filed against you? Were annual business filings consistently submitted on time?

- Have your personal finances been thoroughly examined, including analysis of any foreclosures, personal bankruptcy filings, investments, etc.? Are all taxes up-to-date?

- Is there anything in your past that has not been addressed in this questionnaire that you see as a potential vulnerability in your run for Congress?

Considering the answers that McCann would have had to provide to questions like these -- if answered truthfully -- we fail to see how the McCann campaign could have possibly obtained entry into the program or secured the designation for their candidate.  If answered truthfully, that is.

We understand that some law enforcement officers who have been in legal disputes with Mr. McCann, an attorney, have accumulated enough background material on him to choke a horse.   And his tax liens and such make for a poor public record.  A quick look at this website will make you wonder what is going on inside the brain cavities at the NRCC:

https://www.realjohnmccann.com/

Could it just be desperation?  The chicken wing of the congressional GOP has been cutting and running rather than standing on its record in 2018.  Nearly half of New Jersey's Republican incumbents have quit rather than fight.  Because of them, New Jersey might well be on its way to becoming another Massachusetts.  And it is no surprise that these incumbents are -- like McCann -- from the GOP's liberal Whitman "My-Party-Too" crowd.  They long ago cut ties with the conservatives who make up the Republican base. 

Maybe the NRCC is taking anyone with a pulse into these programs?  Based on its acceptance of a candidacy as shambolic as McCann's is, the NRCC no longer has the high standards and stringent requirements it once did.

Well, we owe it to you -- our readers -- to get to the bottom of this.  So we are going to publish the questions asked by the NRCC, and the details of what should have been revealed by the McCann campaign to them.  Then we are going to ask the NRCC... Why? 

But not just the NRCC staff.  Because anyone who has read Donna Brazile's new book knows how corrupt national committees can become.  Here's a piece of the story, courtesy of Politico...

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

So judge for yourself as to whether or not "corruption" of one kind or another could have figured into what happened.  What we do know is that there are eight elected public employees who are responsible for the oversight of the NRCC and should be held to account for its decisions.  They are all members of Congress themselves, and all accountable to the people and to the media -- inside their districts, as well as the wider media.  So we will be reaching out to them as well and asking them:  "Knowing this... why did you allow this to happen?"

Maybe they didn't know?  Maybe they caught a line of bullshit?  Maybe somebody is doing somebody a favor?  Maybe they are scared and believe that it's all over but the shouting?  Who knows?  And that's why we are going to ask.

"Moocher" label: Democrat Gottheimer's coded racism?

Congressman Josh Gottheimer (NJ-05) has been throwing the "M-word" around again.  The Bergen County Democrat has taken to social media to decry what he calls "moocher states" -- which Gottheimer defines as those who get more back than they pay in. 

According to Gottheimer, the country's top "moocher" is Mississippi, the state with the highest percentage of African-American residents -- 37 percent and growing.  In contrast, New Jersey's percentage -- 13 percent -- is about a third of Mississippi's.  So what is Congressman Gottheimer trying to say and who is he calling "moochers"?

Perhaps the real reason Mississippi receives more in federal money than New Jersey does, is that the folks who live in Mississippi are -- on average -- much poorer than those who reside in New Jersey.  According to the latest data from the United States Census Bureau, Mississippi is the poorest state in America, with a median household income of just $40,593.  In contrast, New Jersey is the fourth richest state in America, with a median household income of $72,222.  Only Maryland, Hawaii, and Alaska had higher median household incomes, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. 

By another measurement -- covering the years 2010-2014 -- New Jersey is the second richest state in America, with a Per Capita Income of $37,288.  By this measurement, Mississippi is again the poorest state in America, with a Per Capita Income of just $21,036.

In applying the "moocher" label to Mississippi, Democrat Gottheimer claims that New Jersey gets back just 33 cents for every dollar it sends to Washington, while Mississippi receives $4.38 for every dollar it sends to Washington.  Despite Gottheimer's claims, the Pew Charitable Trust Reports that New Jersey received far more in actual federal money than did the state he mocks as a "moocher":

But the Democrat has raised an interesting concept in his claim that some places "mooch" off other places when they get back from government more than they pay in.  If there are "moocher states" as Democrat Gottheimer claims, can we apply Gottheimer's measurement to other cases -- such as the relationship between municipalities or school districts within a state.  If, as the Democrat Congressman claims, there are places that "mooch" off the federal government, does it not also follow that there are places that "mooch" off state government?

This was the central idea behind State Senator Mike Doherty's Fair School Funding plan, which he championed back in 2012.  According to Doherty (R-23) and his acolytes, the solemn promise made to the voters when the state income tax was established -- that the proceeds would be used so that property taxes could be reduced -- was broken by the state judiciary (the failsafe of the political establishment) when it absconded with the revenue from the state income tax and directed that it be used for social engineering purposes, in what became known as the Abbott Decision.  Worse still was that the two other branches of the State's government -- the Executive and the Legislature -- allowed the Judiciary to get away with it.

In effect, New Jersey's judiciary set up a "moocher" and "mooched upon" relationship within New Jersey, based on the municipality that you happened to reside in.  This is the world now -- as Democrats like Josh Gottheimer see it:  The "moochers" and those "mooched upon."

So who are the "moochers" in Democrat Gottheimer's brave new world? 

In 2012, Senator Doherty conducted a series of town-hall meetings in which he demonstrated how some municipalities in New Jersey were -- to use Democrat Gottheimer's phrase -- "mooching" off other municipalities.  Using data supplied by the Department of the Treasury, Department of Education, and the Office of Legislative Services, Doherty compared two towns -- one, a so-called "Abbott" District in Monmouth County; the other, a non-Abbott in Sussex County.

Like the federal income tax, New Jersey has a progressive income tax.  Those who earn more, pay more.  According to the figures provided to Senator Doherty, the top 1% of earners pay 38.5 percent of the state income tax, while the bottom 33 percent pay nothing.

Doherty compared Asbury Park, an Abbott District, with Sparta Township, a non-Abbott, and found that the average Sparta resident paid almost 6 times as much income tax as the average resident of Asbury Park:

Doherty also found that the average student in Asbury Park got back 17 times as much in income tax revenue as the average student in Sparta Township:

In what Congressman Gottheimer would call a clear case of mooching, Asbury Park paid in just a sixth -- in income taxes per person -- of what Sparta did, but got back 17 times more!

Senator Doherty made the point that New Jersey got back just 61 cents on every dollar it sent to Washington, DC, but noted that for non-Abbott towns like Sparta, the return was even worse on the state income tax money it sent to Trenton. 

            Sparta Twp - $5,611,989 / $36,267,481 = $0.15

            Asbury Park - $57,632,816 / $3,835,809 = $15.02

That's right.  Towns like Sparta get back 15 cents on every dollar they pay in state income tax to Trenton.

Senator Doherty noted that unlike everywhere else in America, New Jersey's school funding formula -- and its use of the state's revenue from the income tax -- left many of its towns without a basic threshold with which to educate their children.  And because of this, New Jersey needed artificially high property taxes to pay for the children in these revenue-starved towns.

The Trenton Democrats have argued that these so-called Abbott towns need all that revenue because they are economically disadvantaged.  Yes, they once were,  but the Democrats have ignored the economic gentrification going on in places like Hoboken, Jersey City, and Asbury Park -- and the enormous influx of wealthy professionals and rich corporations.  The Democrats' formula for apportioning the state's take from the income tax is locked in a time warp -- based on figures decades old. 

In fact, when the state commissioned a study on how effective its formula was at helping economically disadvantaged children, the state's own figures showed that it missed half the state's poor children -- those who lived outside the so-called Abbott towns.  That was a decade ago, the Abbotts have only grown collectively richer since then.

Today we have a situation where poor families in suburban and rural New Jersey are subsidizing rich people in chic urban hotspots.  Their cut of the revenue from the state income tax allows these hotspots to keep their property taxes comparatively low.  Why should rich Hoboken get its property taxes underwritten by the income tax revenue paid by rural Warren County?

 Warren County has double the population of Hoboken City (107,000 to 52,000) but the population of Hoboken has been growing while Warren is shrinking (5% vs. -1%).

And while Hoboken has just 800 veterans, Warren County has over 7,000.

The per capita income of Hoboken City is over $70,000.  This compares with Warren County, at $33,000.

The median value of an owner-occupied home is $550,700 in Hoboken but only $271,100 in Warren County.

The U.S. Census reported that 5.5% of the people in Hoboken are without health insurance vs. 12.5% of those in Warren County.

73.5% of those 25 or older in Hoboken have graduated from college.  In Warren County that figure is 29.6%.

So why do Trenton Democrats continue to support a system that allows rich people in Hoboken to "mooch" off poor families in Warren County?  Somebody needs to ask Democrats like Phil Murphy and Tim Eustace next time they hold a press conference with Josh Gottheimer to complain about "moocher states."

Who is this John McCann being pushed on us?

Another "star" is born.  Courtesy of a SaveJersey "poll" and indicating little more than that somebody's hand has been working overtime.  Sigh.

We doubt that 425 people could pick John McCann out of a line-up.  But that hasn't stopped a few insiders from pushing him for Congress in CD05 as the latest, tired NJGOP... wait for it... "game changer"! 

Oh, how we love that phrase.  Such a long list of losers have been touted as "game changers" -- so many lifeless, idealess, dead-end sales floor mannequins.

The Republican party bosses in Bergen County, fresh from their most recent loss (in a long string of losses), have abjectly surrendered to the point that they now believe that the only way forward is to formally turn their county organization over to the Democrats, and to rest comfortably under the wing of the Democrat Party.  So they accept the Democrats' terms and lawyer John McCann, who works for and is paid by the County's elected Democrat Sheriff, will be their candidate for Congress. 

With John McCann, Republicans will appear to have found a candidate to oppose incumbent Democrat Josh Gottheimer.  In reality, McCann's candidacy will be a hollow one, lacking financial resources or contrast with the Democrat.  It will serve the Democrats' will and cement Democrat Gottheimer into a district that no Democrat should hold.

John McCann is one of the NJGOP's "hollow men" -- having surfaced to run for the Assembly in 1995, he was crushed, fell to earth, and burrowed into the moist manure of crony politics.  Here he existed as a kind of chrysalis, without thought, ideology, or principles.  The money doesn't allow such things.  There are lots of "hollow men" about.  The NJGOP could not fill a room without them.

We are the hollow men
    We are the stuffed men
    Leaning together
    Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
    Our dried voices, when
    We whisper together
    Are quiet and meaningless
    As wind in dry grass
    Or rats' feet over broken glass
    In our dry cellar
    
    Shape without form, shade without colour,
    Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

    ...Behaving as the wind behaves

At the very beginning of conservative Scott Garrett's career in Congress, at the very beginning, John McCann attempted to go from pupa to butterfly.  But it was to oppose both Scott Garrett and Gerry Cardinale in the primary because, so John McCann said, they were "too conservative."

McCann, a self-described follower of the ideology of Democrat-turned Republican-turned Democrat Arlen Specter, assured anyone who cared to listen that the only way Republicans could hold on to CD05 was to nominate a "moderate".  McCann spelled that out as someone who was liberal on abortion, the social issues, and the Second Amendment.  Oh well, he was wrong, and in any case, his campaign collapsed because he couldn't raise the money or support to sustain it.  That was in 2002.  Does anyone really believe that the GOP has gone Left since then?

But McCann is, so they assure us, a GAME CHANGER.  And if you look at it from the other end, he is.  It's the end game.  John McCann's candidacy promises to end the game and to deliver New Jersey's 5th Congressional District into Democrat hands for what might as well be an eternity in politics.  And the Democrat Sheriff will keep writing his Democrat checks, and the Bergen bosses will accrue some considerations, and one more piece will be removed from the already almost blank board.  One less contention to squabble over. 

This is the way the world ends
    This is the way the world ends
    This is the way the world ends
    Not with a bang but a whimper.