On election day "The people have spoken!", today we're as dumb as a box of rocks

(originally posted November 10, 2007)



The day after election day politicians still remember people played a part in them getting into office. They speak of "mandates" (the more time an elected official says mandate in their speech the thinner the margin the won by) or they repeat their campaign promises and say "the people have spoken". Then the cameras turn off and its back to their offices to determine how to best pay back their political donors and forward their own personal agenda. Two shining examples of this are the Governors of Oregon and New Jersey.

Last week I crowed about many states voting down public bonding questions. The mandate that almost universally sent throughout the country (there were a few notable exceptions) was that the people spoke and rejected their state and local government's uncontrollable desire to raise taxes, often for things the private sector could do better.

The governor of Oregon, Ted Kulongoski, has been pushing for years to increase the cigarette tax through the legislature, the appropriate method for such legislation. However his attempts were thwarted by "House Republicans" who objected to A) the wording of the legislation that did not set aside the added revenues for the proposed health care plan, and B) using cigarette taxes as guaranteed income since the estimated income is based on the current number of packs sold and does not include the number of people who would quit after the tax tripled.

So after his pet project got spanked down hard (60-40) did Governor Kulongoski say "the people have spoken, they mandate no new taxes"? No he said they were "confused", "didn't understand the issue" and "were deceived by the tobacco companies who bought the elections". Yes the tobacco companies spent an estimated $12 million on advertising against Measure 50, about 75% of what was spent trying to pass it, and that doesn't include the governor's use of tax dollars to propagate the measure in the first place.


What Kulongoski, like many urban liberals, don't seem to understand (or remember in Kulongoski's case since he was born in rural Missouri) is that rural farmers, who understand self reliance and are living a near subsistence existence themselves, don't understand why they have to pay extra so others can get health care.

But fear not, the hubris of Kulongoski is not faltering. After dismissing the real mandate that the people don't want a tax increase, he said he will reintroduce it in the state legislature. WTH? He played the nuclear option of going for a constitutional amendment to increase the taxes and the people, in a resounding voice, said "NO!!!", and he proposes to raise it again in 2008, and if necessary 2009. This is not about serving the people of Oregon who clearly did not agree with measure 50, it is about serving himself.


But when you talk about self serving you should immediately think of Jon Corzine, the Governor of New Jersey who was elected to the US Senate but resigned to run for Governor because he is a megalomaniac and his hubris couldn't deal with being one of 435 members of the US congress, his ego could only be satiated by being sole executive of a state with a budget and GDP exceeding half the countries in the world.

New Jersey voted down 2 of 3 public questions that addressed bonding and raising taxes. The one that rankled Corzine's feathers the most was rejecting his crusade for state funded stem cell research. Jon Corzine believes so much in state funded stem cell research that he put up almost $200K of his own money to publicize the issue. Corzine chalks up the question's resounding failure (55-45, a political landslide) to "uninformed voters" who "fell prey to a campaign of fear", led by "the Catholic Church and other groups".


What makes Jon Corzine's emotional and dismissive remarks about the "uninformed" voters of New Jersey, is that many people in NJ have an understanding of the market and understand that if embryonic stem cell research promised so much, the pharm houses and bio-techs would be throwing money at it like a fireman throwing water on a fire. In 2006, the New Jersey legislature passed a law setting up a $270 million stem cell research fund, with the stipulation it not be used for embryonic research. The defeated public question removed such stipulation and in fact listed diseases "such as Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, diabetes, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, sickle cell anemia and spinal cord injuries."

But private industry is not throwing money at embryonic stem cell research, because unlike the misinformation distributed to NJ voters in the guise of an interpretation, business will back a winning cause that will earn it money. Embryonic stem cell research has, after decades of research, failed to produce anything useful. Adult stem cell research has been wildly successful, and despite the ever growing list of cures and treatments developed, since the strands created in the labs are shorter deemed to not have the same potential as embryonic research.


Corzine, who amassed his vast fortune on Wall Street, knows that once embryonic stem cell research is proven to be useful corporations will toss around all of the money that they have to develop cures for the diseases stated above, but until then they will concentrate their efforts on adult stem cell research and medicines to attenuate the symptoms of them. They will continue to put the lion share of their money where they will get results, and invest more frugally in non performing avenues, such as embryonic stem cell research.

But the issue of stem cell research is not totally germane to my point. What is central to my argument is Jon Corzine's disingenuous denial that the people are not informed. To the contrary, the voters in NJ know the truth behind the issue, it is not based on scientific data, it is based on emotion and emotion alone. The fact remains the proposition lost not because of the excuses Jon Corzine and his followers offered, but because the voters, who were hailed as geniuses for putting him in office, are smarter than he gives us credit for... and we're tired of paying the highest property taxes in the country.

New Jersey: at the forefront of separating taxpayers from their money

(originally posted November 2, 2007)

New Jersey, on the heels of successfully raising the sales tax from six to seven per cent without a revolt similar to the one that rode Jim Florio out of the Governor's Mansion has decided they will leave it up to voters to raise their own taxes. There are four public questions on the ballot this year, three of them are looking to mandate allocations of money. These alocations, if approved must be met before any of the revenue sources that traditionally fund the general treasury actualy get there.

In layman's terms, allocating this money means more money will be needed to complete the regular budget. This means fees and taxes will have to increase to make up the money these allocations mandate if the questions pass. So what are the pressing issues our legislators want us to legislate by public question, essentially voing for potentially unbridled tax increases to pay for them. (Public questions in NJ are not like public referendums, in NJ public questions are forwarded by Trenton or approval by taxpayers, usually asking to make minor wording changes to the state constitution or dedicate funding apart from the general treasury.)

Public Question 1: Dedicates annual revenue of an amount equal to a tax rate of 1% under the state sales tax for property tax reform.

So a few months after raising our sales tax rate by 1% to meet general treasury obligations they want to dedicate it towards property tax relief. So once it gets rededicated how does the treasury shortfall get readdressed, why by raising the sales tax again by another percent. So in essence it is asking voters to approve raising their own taxes! You are essentially voting to tax yourelf to provide tax relief.

Public Question 2: Stem Cell Research Bond Issue

There is no need to publically fund stem cell research. Lots of institutes, research labs and universities, and corporations are funding the research into stem cell research. It is embryonic stem cell research that needs funding. And why? Because embryonic stem cell research has never yielded any results. They are so far away from any solid results that the pharmaceutical houses and bio-meds are heavily invested in it. (New Jersey is far and away the bio-med/pharm capital of the world, without exception, if their headquarters isn't here than they have labs and offices.)

But the most telling aspect of this is that New Jersey's governor, Jon Corzine, made his hundred's of millions of dollars at Goldman Sachs... an investment company. He should know that is there was any potential in embryonic stem cell research Wall Street and the bio-med/pharms would be clmouring for a piece of the action.

Public Question 3: Green Acres, Farmland, Blue Acres, and Historical Preservation Act of 2007

Who could oppose a bond to dedicate a mere 200 million to buying open space, preserving farms, buying houses in historic flood zones, and historical property preservation? Well, I for one. If there was a not for profit established to conduct this work I would gladly donate to it, perhaps in excess of the money my tax burden for them would be. But the nagging fact remains that in the corrupt state of New Jersey a disproportionate amount of Green Acres and Farmland money goes to politically connected entities.

Much like Lee Iacocca did with the restoration of Ellis Island a quai-public/private collaboration could yield better results than simply shoveling tax money into the pockets of political allies. Plus the line in the law that says the blue acres funding will only be used to buy property from willing sellers in flood plains is reminescent of similar actions in the past when people were forced to sell only to have the property redeveloped. It smacks of eminent domain.

So yes I oppose all three of these public questions. And I hope any New Jerseyan's who read this vote no to public questions 1, 2, and 3.

Public question 4 is to change the wording in the consitution regarding who is eligile to vote. The current wording says "idiot or insane person" and suggests changing it to a more politically correct substitute. I hope everyone votes no for the first 3 questions and yes for the fourth. Not because I favor being PC, but so Trenton gets the message that we oppose their irresponsible tax and spend policies and that we read and understood the questions. In Trenton when a public question they want to pass is defeated they always blame it on the electorate not understanding the question.

All governments need to learn that their citizens are not a limitless source of cash they can go to everytime they want to spend more money.