Back to square one

Just when we got through what seemed like a presidential campaign with no end, they're starting all over. At least on the Republican side. Mitt Romney has restarted his political action committee. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is heading to Iowa on Nov. 22 to give the keynote address to a conservative group. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is being watched for clues as to her plans for 2012. That's four years on the calendar but an eternity in politics. It would be good if they could give us a little rest.

Over here, Mr. Obama, choose me

Corzine seems to want to be Treasury secretary so much he keeps adding those out of state media interviews so he can keep his name out there. All the time he says he's really interested in completing the job here. I've been searching the net for and talking to people with connections to Obama to see who really is on the short list of candidates for Treasury. Corzine's name didn't come up. Here are the ones who did: Larry Summers of Harvard who served as Treasury Secretary under Clinton, Timothy Geithner, New York Federal Reserve President, former Fed chief Paul Volcker and Robert Rubin, another former Clinton cabinet member. Perhaps the Obama people are only talking about more qualified people to distract us. Maybe none of those guys want the job and Corzine can move up on the list. Otherwise, Corzine could be ambassador to one of those banana republic countries.

Jerk principal headed for the slammer

While we were busy with the election the former principal of the H.B. Wilson Elementary School in Camden pleaded guilty to using his position as principal to steal $14,000 from students and teachers. Michael Hailey, 67, used his position to have teachers and students pay for field trips already paid for by the school district. Teachers conducted fund-raisers and sometimes paid out of their own pockets for the trips for children who couldn't. The Attorney General's Division of Criminal Justice gets the credit. Under a plea agreement, the state will recommend three to five years in the slammer for Hailey. He retired from being principal in July 2006 when investigators were hot on his heels.

Now, that one is baaaaad

A new audit shows NJ tax officials don't property monitor or enforce rules that give property tax breaks to farmers. At least they were meant to help farmers. Fact is all you need is five acres acres and $500 of "farm income" which could be a few Christmas trees for former Sen. Karcher. The audit found a $15.05 tax bill for 7.26 acres that had 1 -- that's not a typo, one -- sheep. The bar is so low all manner of folks can claim to be farmers. One town was said to need 12 years just to catch up. Richard Nieuwenhuis, president of the New Jersey Farm Bureau, said the audit shows that government isn't catching abusers who threaten the program for legitimate farmers. "The audit shows it's not how well you farm the land, it's how well you farm the government,'' said the Sierra Club's Jeff Tittel. Treasury spokesman Tom Vincz says the overall program hasn't been review in 20 years because of overburdened tax assessors. OK, go ahead and laugh out loud.

It's in your hands now

Thank goodness, this seemingly endless political season is coming to an end. If you haven't already, get out there and vote as if your future depends on it. It is history in the making. Polls are open 6 AM- 8 PM. Gannett newspapers will have the big picture in tomorrow's papers.

Starting at 8 PM tonight, we will be broadcasting live on the web from app.com with local reports, local races and tidbits you won't get anywhere else from our Gannett Election Team as well keeping you posted on what's going on across the nation. You can take part in blogs and forums.

They promise I won't have to spend any time in the shark tank like I did with the Convention Quickies from Minnesota. For a rerun click here.

For the special Election Night web site launching at 8 PM, click here.

New group aims at high taxes

Maybe this is the new citizens group the people have been asking for. A new alliance of business and civic leaders have formed the New Jersey Taxpayers Alliance. Jerry Cantrell, president of New Jersey Taxpayers Association, a part of the alliance, explained "We are going to turn up the heat on elected officials." The alliance will be a "nonpartisan, grass-roots organization dedicated to achieving real and sustainable tax reform." Dan Gaby is executive director of a group called Excellent Education for Everyone. He noted that while per-pupil spending, adjusted for inflation, has doubled over 30 years, "Academic results have not risen in response to that massive spending. ... Scores are about where they were in 1978." While bureaucrats think that means they haven't thrown enough money at it, this group knows it means a new approach is due. Good luck to them.

Question 1 raises questions

Question 1 on Tuesday's ballot is a compromise because when it was debated in the Legislature in June some Democrats said it went too far, arguing it could cut off school construction, always a favorite since they can argue it is "for the children" while making sure the usual suspects get their piece of the pie. Republicans say it didn't go far enough because independent agencies like the Turnpike Authority can still bond at will.

One of the original sponsors is Sen. Leonard Lance, a Republican who has complained for years the state's constitution is ignored routinely because voters are supposed to have a say in big ticket borrowing. On this question he teamed with Sen. Ray Lesniak, a Democrat.

The state Constitution bans the Legislature from issuing debts greater than 1 percent of the annual state budget without voter approval. The state Supreme Court has exempted municipalities, counties and independent bodies like state authorities. Authorities only need legislative approval to borrow. Of the $29.6 billion in debt about $2.8 billion was approved by voters.

Among those who oppose Question 1 are the New Jersey Education Association, the teachers union, and the Education law Center, which keeps suing the state to dump more money into the Abbott schools.

The Asbury Park Press and other publications have recommended a yes vote on Question 1.

Lawyer Seth Grossman, a colleague of Steve Lonegan, an enemy of state debt, however, did an op ed piece for the APP recommending a no vote. The heart of Grossman's argument follows:


"First, voter approval will not be needed if a proposed project has "an independent nonstate source of revenue" or "a source of revenue otherwise required to be appropriated pursuant to another provision of this Constitution." Any Enron accountant or Abbott lawyer can drive a truck through those loopholes.

"But here is the real kicker: "No voter approval shall be required . . . authorizing the creation of . . . debts . . . for the refinancing of all or a portion of any outstanding debts or liabilities of . . . an autonomous public corporate entity."

"The state Supreme Court ruled that New Jersey voters don't have to pay a dime on any of the $29 billion previously borrowed by shell entities unless they vote to do it. But with a "Yes" vote on Question No. 1, Corzine and the Legislature could pass a simple law to refinance every dollar of the $37 billion borrowed by state authorities without voter approval. Then, every unenforceable contract to pay $3 billion a year will become enforceable for the first time for the next 30 years.

"Once the full faith and credit of New Jersey is pledged, all state sales tax money is earmarked to pay that debt before it is spent on anything else. And if that money is not enough, the state is legally obligated to adopt a new statewide property tax to pay the difference.

"Don't be fooled. Vote "No" on Question No. 1."

Tom Yarn of The Cherry Hill Reform Committee sent this to his group's membership:

"Question one is a question to allow the legislature to pass statutes related to authorizing debt. The question should have set forth the exact wording change to the Constitution. It does not. It refers to a "law enacted thereafter" rather than the exact change of wording as you normally do when you amend a Constitutional provision.

"Question one also has a "provisional" statement in it about the approval of the voters with the "unless" word being used to allow debt to be authorized by the legislators with appropriations that are "pledged" by annual appropriations that are a matter of the legislators merely raising taxes to make such a pledge. It also applies the "unless" word for appropriations that are described in a vague manner regarding 3rd person and non-state funds involvement. This is a loophole and a way to fund state projects and services without voter approval."




The state could refuse to pay not one dime on any of the $29 billion borrowed by entities. But should that happen, the state would never be able to borrow again, at least not at a rate anyone could afford. That probably won't happen.

An interesting argument growing out of this is whether the state could continue to build schools without asking the public's permission by borrowing with the income tax as a dedicated source of revenue to back up the bonds. Property taxes are mostly used to support schools. The income tax is supposed to be about reducing property taxes. An administration could make the argument that by borrowing money backed by the income tax it actually is offsetting property taxes.

Could Question 1 be stronger? Definitely. Are there loopholes? Sure, it's New Jersey. They like to play games with taxpayers. Do we need it? Grossman maintains the state Constitution already bans borrowing without voter approval and Question 1 is a Wall Street bailout for bonds sold previously without voter approval. Does Question 1 improve things? Its supporters say vote yes. Lonegan, Yarn, Grossman, the NJEA and the Education Law Center say vote no, but for different reasons.

For a news story on Question 1, click here.

For a news story on Question 2, click here.