Gov. Christie: The Arrogance of Power

Following an extraordinary vote on a legislative bill in which not a single Democrat nor Republican voted “no,” Christie’s arrogance of power reared its ugly head when he conditionally vetoed the bill (S1306) yesterday. He even managed to chop off  the bill’s title –  “The Sandy Bill of Rights.” Apparently he owns the rights and the victims be damned.

Senate President Steve Sweeney said, “the governor’s action lacks common sense. His administration continues to mismanage the Sandy recovery process and this veto may be one of the biggest blunders yet.” Christie’s cuts included more than 150 changes.

The legislature should waste no time in over-riding the veto. Sandy victims deserve no less.  

Comments (5)

  1. princetonblue

    I’m not commenting on the bill or the merits of the veto, but I strongly disagree with your statement that it’s an arrogance of power for Christie to veto a bill that was unanimously approved by the legislature.

    There have been many times in our history when politicians took a courageous stand against the majority, or should have.  The rush to war after 9/11, because “everyone” thought it was the right thing to do, is an example of the perils of going with the overwhelming majority.

    Let’s debate the merits of the legislation instead.

  2. marshwren

    being stampeded into a war of choice on the basis of lies, hype and hysteria, and providing accountability to an administrative process (Christie’s mishandling of Sandy aid).

    Fact is, Christie can’t afford to let this become law, because it’s a legislative repudiation of his handling of Sandy aid; not that his veto of it adds to his reputation for bipartisan cooperation and transparency.

  3. Bill Orr (Post author)

    Rather than just saying, “I’m not commenting on the bill or the merits of the veto,” I would suggest you read the bill and the veto message linked above, and then decide whether it’s an arrogance of power. I do not think this is a case of Christie taking “a courageous stand.” It’s more of a cowardly stand trying to hide the incompetent aspects of his Sandy relief efforts.  

  4. Rosi Efthim

    I would have liked to see the faces of people whose homes, businesses, financial stability and families were devastated by Sandy, if you could have told them 19 months ago that the fleece-wearing governor hugging and reassuring them in front of national cameras would one day take apart something called The Sandy Bill of Rights. Particularly when it so clearly was intended to remedy widely reported problems and roadblocks those very Sandy victims have been frustrated by.

    The Sandy Bill of Rights looked like decent legislation to me – good enough that no legislator of either party voted against it.

    If anybody was still looking at whether this governor has checked out of New Jersey altogether, here it is. He’s ensured that he will still be able to steer Sandy money to pet projects that don’t alleviate circumstances for Sandy victims. And for the people still actually unsettled from the storm, he’s blocked out a sensible proposal to clearly, quickly let them know them their status as they navigate programs and applications.

    I agree with what the Ledger said this morning: the Legislature should override this veto, and I would add that that charge should be led by Sen. Sweeney, whose name is on this legislation as prime sponsor, and who campaigned for it across the state.  

  5. princetonblue

    I don’t want to discuss the bill as it’s not why I posted. I pointed out that there is no connection between the the first claim of your post and the merits of the bill.

    We would spend lots of time criticizing such arguments if Christie made them.  We need to use the same standards for our own arguments.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *