Can anyone actually LEAD?

Great post Thurman! (4.00 / 1)

I have been wondering why there hasn't been more coverage of this issue, especially at this site.   I've been wanting to write a diary on it, but there were other demands on my time recently.

I completely agree with you, Thurman.  It doesn't appear as if the Senate Democratic leadership wants to lead.  This budget "compromise" is essentially a cave-in to the Republicans.  If this is what Democratic leadership means, then why bother fighting for it?  These are difficult times, but it seems like the Democratic leadership isn't up to the task of leading.  Politically, I think this will backfire on them.

---

by: princetonblue @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 00:59:47 AM UTC

Joe Roberts knew how to lead (0.00 / 0)

He is sorely missed.

But I haven't given up hope yet on Sweeney and Oliver. It's early. Or maybe I'm an optimist. We'll see.

---

by: the_promised_land @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 02:44:25 AM UTC

i agree (0.00 / 0)

Speaker Roberts was a true leader and statesman.  He stood up for what he believed in, and kept his caucus in line when it mattered most.  I am still waiting to be impressed by Oliver, while I'll reserve comment on Sweeney because I don't have too many nice things to say.

---

by: southernbluedog @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 11:55:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Uh... (0.00 / 0)

With Norcross pulling his strings, he pretty much blocked every reform effort for years...

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 12:51:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And your alternative ideas are? (2.00 / 1)

The easy thing to do is tear something down. But what do you replace it with.

The budget is a mess. There is no money except the Millionaires tax ,and I do not see any ground swell from anyone,especially the Unions,  to get that tax implemented.

What DO YOU WANT Sweeney and Oliver to do?

I know what you want them not to do and that is to NOT agree with the budget.

Do you want a state shutdown to prove your point?

The Governorship in New Jersey is the most powerful Governors post in the country. But he is not King. However I have seen no alternative budgets here or anywhere else that make any sense.

Sweeney and Oliver are working to get some cuts restored,but that only means that someone else will get cut.

Before you just throw stones try to give an idea on an alternative budget plan.

     

---

by: firstamend07 @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 10:18:04 AM UTC

Thanks for the smile!! (4.00 / 2)

Firstamend07,

I really do wonder if you are a relative of Steve Sweeney or work for him.   Someone criticizes Steve Sweeney and suddenly, you are saying everyone should be constructive?  You, who has been non-constructive about union leaders for 3+ years?  Don't you find something slightly inconsistent here?

The funny thing is that you should be addressing Sen. Sweeney as he's the one not being constructive here.  Or leading.  That's the point of the article.

As Senate leader, Sen. Sweeney has the responsibility to put forward a budget plan or support the one on the table as the best possible. But Sweeney's stated plan is to disagree with the current plan, but not to put his own on the table. The article says that he wants  Republicans to take responsibility for the plan, so that Democrats don't get the political heat.  Since he's not putting forward any other alternative, it appears that Sweeney is behaving like a child.   If the plan is bad, he should put forward a better alternative.  And if there isn't a better alternative, then he should act like a grown-up and take responsibility for the plan on the table. Shirking responsibility is something my little toddler likes to do.  I expect more from my representatives.

---

by: princetonblue @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 13:17:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, I want a shutdown (4.00 / 1)

If Sweeney and Oliver want to be leaders, they should stop playing political games like they have been with the "Millionaires Tax" and write a budget that will rewrite the income tax code, creating new tax brackets and tax rates that pay for the needs of our state.  

They should also write a budget that establishes a county school district system and gives voters in local school districts the choice of joining this system and having their property taxes reduced dramatically or remaining independent from it and having their property taxes increase dramatically as they realize the true cost of home rule.

As leaders of majorities in both the Assembly and Senate, they are not helpless if they have the guts to take Christie down and being willing to shut the state down for weeks or even months has to be an option.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 16:43:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's pretty simple (4.00 / 3)

Democrats should:
1) Support pay-to-play bans at all levels
2) WRITE THE BUDGET

Honestly, you don't want to tangle with me. This post is very clear and what I expect. So, please, don't act stupid and pretend that I'm just bashing windows for the fun of it.

Come to think of it - you're just damn near a professional at throwing stones. So why not take your own advice before running this drivel off of your lips?

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 17:30:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's Called Courageous Leadership! n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 20:30:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

At least pass an alternative budget (3.67 / 3)

With different funding priorities.  If he vetoes it, then you can go to plan B.  But don't just fold straight away.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 13:59:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sweeney chooses "get out of the way" (0.00 / 0)

Looks like Sweeney has chosen the best of the three options available at this time, to get out of the way.  

What Sweeney's decision says to us is "I know Christie has no choice but to make these radical cuts.  I know it is good for the State that these cuts are made. So I will not get in the way."

Frankly, that better than resisting it, and though the approach is a tad bit cowardly in your eyes, it is best for the people of NJ.

Thurman, you said "That a legislative majority would turn over the power of the purse-strings to a party that has been rejected soundly by the people of the state is beyond idiocy."

That statement may have been true in the past, but Christie's existence as Governor proves it is not true now, or in the near term future.   We independents have two choices, Blue or Red.  Neither reflect all our views.  

Since there is no denying the Blue team has screwed-da-pooch, as it were, we have little choice but reject the Blue team and now support the Red.    Sweeney seems to be smart enough to understand that.

As the one poster points out.. what COULD the Blue team do with the budget anyway?  You would have no more choice then Christie has.

It's time for the Blue-Dogs to cease to simply resist everything Christie does simply because he is a Republican, and start thinking of what's good for  us (you know we-the-people).  

Maybe you actually have the best leader in Sweeney, as at least he seems to have the smarts to bow to the inevitable.   Always wise to acknowledge reality, and that reality is there is no revenue to cover your pie-in-the-sky utopian type failed policies. A millionaire tax is not a solution, it simply exacerbates the problems this state has.  

So how about your Blue-dogs cease to name-call and cease in your attempts to cast aspersions on the new administration and try something unique.. like HELP get this state back on it's feet by HELPING find ways to cut costs, end corruption, end waste, end the school construction debacle, support tuition vouchers WITH YOUR WHOLE  HEARTS for the GOOD OF THE CHILDREN.

When you believe in US (we-the-people) more than your CURRENT sources of campaign funds, then we-the-people will once again believe in YOU.   We know what's best for US, and that's liberty not government control.

So Sweeney gets the thumbs-up for this move.  The BEST thing you Dem's can do now, is to get out of the way, or follow Christie's lead, and be useful instead of being a boulder in the river of progress.

The whole Tea Party movement is about "encouraging" you party people (blue & red) to clean up your own houses.   You don't, we will.

Nora

---

by: Nora's Tea Party @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 14:06:55 PM UTC

Political Cowardice (0.00 / 0)

It may be that Sweeney believes that Christie's plan is the best possible plan.  If that's the case, he should say that and support the plan.

---

by: princetonblue @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 14:15:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He SHOULD support the plan. (0.00 / 0)

You are correct princetonblue, a courageous person would stand up and speak the truth which is---

We have NO choice but to cut spending across the board.   The economy dictates available funding and as long as New Jersey's tax policies are such that businesses flee the state instead of flocking to it, we shall continue the death spiral.

---

by: Nora's Tea Party @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 14:46:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fired Up? (0.00 / 0)

Wow Nora you are on FIRE!

There is a choice and unfortunately it was rejected by the same people who rejected Corzine/Weinberg.  The choice was some admittedly fancy accounting (to get US through the rough patch) and leveraging some of our assets.  To the later I specifically reference asset monetization; which was as vilified on the right ("selling the turnpike") as it was fumbled on the rollout (note to self). Nobody was contemplating "selling" anything.  It was a Ground Lease, which bye-the-bye is how most public private partnerships (think Battery Park City and WTC redevelopment) are completed. Can be as extensive as turning over complete control (something vehemently opposed by the Turnpike unions) or as unobtrusive as advertisements on Toll Booths (think EZ-PASS) And, when you are the Lessor (which would be US in this case) you can determine most if not all of the terms.

So there was, is and will continue to be choices.  To say otherwise is either foolish or disingenuous.

---

by: Got Kids @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 17:22:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Got Kids... Got a point also. (0.00 / 0)

I bow to your logic in that there are always some different options available to tweak.   I have not researched "asset monetization" so cannot speak to that point.

In general, the X# of billions/millions that needs to be cut will still need to be cut give or take a mill or two (grin).   Either way you look at it, as the public firmly rejects tax hikes as a solution, cutting spending will still need to occur.

And yes... I am on fire.   I so want to see both the blue and red dogs cease their pit-bull battle and sit down to WORK FOR US instead of their own political futures..   That is what service is about, sacrificing YOUR OWN welfare for the good of the whole.

I don't see much sacrifice going on or even attempts on the blue side of the ball field to really sit down and work on reform.   That is a problem.  

---

by: Nora's Tea Party @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 03:28:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

oh please (4.00 / 1)

If you want to raise tolls on the Turnpike go ahead and do it. If you want to borrow billions and pay it off with higher tolls go ahead.
Asset monetization was a horrible idea and even if it had worked exactly as Corzine said it would not even have closed this year's deficit.  

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 14:47:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Higher Tolls? (0.00 / 0)

No one said anything about higher tolls.  Although I guess at some point in the future, tolls, like everything else, go up.  What we were talking about was advertising.  I hate to go all pop-cultutre here but if you watch Edge of Darkness (Mel Gibson) you'll see a bank banner on a toll booth for some commercial bank. Not unlike the big NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE sign that resides there I guess to remind us where all the quarters went.
Christie is exploring leasing (catch that LEASING) one or more rest stops.  There are a myriad of options before we, you or anyone else has to go talking about raising tolls.  Although I must admit I'd like to see some "YOUR WELCOME J. Corzine" signs on the NEW lanes of the GSP.
And I distinctly remember some report about NJTA unions running amok.  Nothing unusual there!

---

by: Got Kids @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 20:31:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Floating Ad's (0.00 / 0)

LOL.. How about the movie where the advertisements followed you around.   The Fifth Element?  (grin)  

---

by: Nora's Tea Party @ Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 03:05:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

interesting (0.00 / 0)

Not quite sure what you mean by nobody mentioning. The main point in leading/monetizing/whatever-you-call-it was to raise the tolls by a lot.  Corzine to his credit was honest about that.  

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 22:27:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please find one point (4.00 / 1)

where I disagree with a single budget cut. Oh, you can't! Then please pull your head out of your colon.

This isn't about specifics of the budget. It's about someone shoving others aside to get a leadership position and then completely abdicating the responsibilities of that position.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 17:36:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Total crap (4.00 / 1)

Christie was elected by a minority of voters.

And I've been working for reform for years, so don't give me some pre-written, talking-point driven speech from the teabag crew. Folks like you were perfectly happy to coast along while George W. Bush drove our economy and worldwide reputation straight into the sewer. And, just for good measure, before you start whimpering about Corzine, you may want to find a few of my posts from his time in office. He may have had a few more vocal critics, but not many.

In case you didn't notice, I'm not particularly impressed by your total inability to deal with the facts of this post.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 17:34:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hostility does not help. (0.00 / 0)

Thurman, dear.   I don't know who you are or what you have done or not done, but the same goes for me.   You don't know who I am either.

But, when I comment, I write my opinion based upon how the logic of a situation, and I do not accuse you of anything at all.   I do not profess to be all knowing or right all the time.  No human is perfect, not me, not you.  

Nothing I do is "pre-written" except when I re-post something I've posted prior, then I notate it as a re-posting.     As for talking points.  I wish I knew what that exactly means.   If it means someone else if feeding me what I should say, that is down right hysterically funny.

There are TONS of people who just WISH they could control my "mouth"... LOL (or stuff a sock in it.)   I'm just me dear, and though my happy little band of tea party folk are a small group, most are also pretty shy so I do the blabbering for us all.

You mention "the facts of this post".  What facts?  That Sweeney is handing the budget finalization to the Red dogs?   I just went up and rescanned your article and saw no facts, just opinion.   My opinion is just a valid as yours as it's OPINION.  

The facts of the State's situation are detailed in the transition manuals, of which I have read every page and the book is touching my heels on my foot stool as I type so I can refer to it if I need a "fact".  

Don't know why you are mad at me, Thurman.  But  you to ASS/U/ME you know me.  To assume I'm someone else's mouth piece simply proves you don't know me at all.    I am my own, always, and as independent as they come.

Happy to have coffee with you any time.  Then you'd see.. 'til then you may not want to make personally based assumptions and stick to concepts and solutions.  

---

by: Nora's Tea Party @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 03:45:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am not your "dear" (4.00 / 2)

Unless we're going to have sex, you can keep that to yourself.

I'm not mad at you. You haven't seen me mad. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry. Even I don't like me when I'm angry.

As far as the facts of this post, as it pertains to the Senate:
1) There is a Democratic majority in the state legislature;
2) It is the responsibility of the majority to write the budget;
3) Democrats are openly saying that they will step back and let Republicans write the budget;
4) That represents an abdication of responsibilty;
5) NO ONE who voted to send a Democrat to Trenton did so with the idea that they would simply turn the control of the government over to Republicans.

While it is true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, that does not mean that every opinion has equal merits. My opinion of your opinion is that it is pure crap. No one is entitled to their own facts, and your continued insistence that voters have endorsed Republican ideas and plans is a gross exageration of the facts. Christie was elected by a minority of voters and had zero coattails.

I guess you don't know facts when you see them. That explains a lot.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 16:57:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Opinion is different than viewpoint. (0.00 / 0)

Thurman, I concur your #1-#5 list is an accurate representation of the facts.   The difference is you look at them through the eyes of a Democrat, and to you it's just an awful thing.

But I look at them through the eyes of Joe Blow the tax payer, and to me this is a good thing as it shall save endless hours of arguing and get the job done quicker.

The tax payer does not care who "saves face", that is an "insider" game, and frankly we're pretty sick of it, no matter which dog is holding up the show.

So it's not about opinion, it's about what is most important, to you.  To YOU winning is important, to the taxpayer getting it done is important.

Get it?  

---

by: Nora's Tea Party @ Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 02:53:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Honesty (4.00 / 1)

Hi Nora,

One has to point it out that you're looking at through the eyes of Joe Blow the Republican tax payer who is happy to cut government services.

Jane Blow the Democratic tax payer does care that her representatives aren't representing Democratic concerns in the budget.

---

by: princetonblue @ Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 17:44:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's a flash (0.00 / 0)

I'm not a Democrat.

Get it?

I look at it as elected officials not doing their job. That's supposed to be what you teabaggers are upset about...but somehow, you never seem to get upset about the GOP and the crap they pull.

That's the difference between the two of us: I call out people on both sides.

Get it?

Good. Now, STFU.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 14:06:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting point of view. (0.00 / 0)

Why is it the left-leaning (won't use the "D" word) think cutting government services is a bad thing?

History tells us the bigger a government gets, the worse conditions become for the people.

If the left-leaning REALLY cared about the welfare of the downtrodden they would work to ensure the economy was strong so the workers have jobs.

Instead the left-leaning fire up the labor base into thinking that the more handouts they get from govt the better off they will be.   Oops, sorry that doesn't really work, but gee, isn't it the THOUGHT that counts.

Oh,  What?  You mean good intentions won't pay the bills?  Gee, never mind, follow us off the brink into the abyss ANYWA, at least we'll get even with those nasty rich people as we commit suicide.

Thurman.. if Sweeney's responsibility now is to get the budget passed.  And the quickest way to do that is to let the Rep do the work... sounds like delegation to me.    

Oh, wait!  I'm sorry, you want only the Democrats to do the work because you voted for them.   Wow, what stellar logic.  I'm awed.

Thurman... did you EVER hear of the concept of working together to get something done?  (sigh)  

---

by: Nora's Tea Party @ Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 15:45:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

working together (0.00 / 0)

because Christie, the republican governor elected with less than 50% of the vote has reached out to work together in any way at all since he was elected?


Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 19:20:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey dunce-bucket (4.00 / 1)

Where did I say that I oppose cutting government services? This is what I mean about being driven by talking points. Your comments have no bearing on reality whatsoever.

History tells us the bigger a government gets, the worse conditions become for the people.

Yes, that's why people are now worse off for having environmental protections, pure food and drugs, and a local police department to call when something happens.

Nora - did you ever hear of actually dealing with reality? (sigh)

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 19:56:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's Ms. Dunce-bucket to YOU... (0.00 / 0)

I am guilty of assumption.  I confess.  As you oppose Sweeney handing the budget off to the Republicans, and the Republicans will preserve all the cuts possible, I assumed (bad of me) that you WANT Sweeney and the Dem's to work on the budget to reverse the cuts and force Christie to deal with a budget that does not fit his administrations agenda.

That led me to assuming you also opposed cuts, caps, and drastic shrinkage of governance.  

So why is it then, if not to preserve spending Christie has cut, do you protest Sweeney delegating budget to the minority party?  

---

by: Nora's Tea Party @ Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 04:15:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dunce-bucket. Period (0.00 / 0)

I oppose Democrats handing over the budget because - news flash - it's their freaking job. If you actually took the time to read the original post, you'd have known that long ago. It's what I've said about half a dozen times.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 07:17:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tea Partyers Can't Read (0.00 / 0)

Thurman,

Haven't you figured it out yet?  Tea partyers don't care about the facts.  It's all about them.  That's why Nora keeps talking about the importance of "I".  It's all about her.  She couldn't care less what you actually wrote.  She just wants a straw man to fight.

---

by: princetonblue @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 00:18:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dunce-bucket. No period (too old) (0.00 / 0)

It's Sweeney's FREAKING JOB, to get the budget passed.   Did you ever think (and I don't know the man, just the scenario) that Sweeney figures if HIS people do it they will simply argue for freaking EVER?  

Imagine setting Christie's budget in a room for of Dem's and coming out the other side with ANY kind of agreement on how to tweak it?

If I was Sweeney in this very unenviable position, I would go to my counterpart on the other "team" and say "Geeze... they'll talk it to death..  how about you guys do it because you already agree.

THINK ABOUT THAT...  He HAS to get the budget passed or the Dem's look like crap to the public.  

God, I don't believe I'm defending the man..   He's my county freeholder director and I do NOT like his spending practices even a little bit...

BUT.... this is a very astute move on his part to have his party come out of it to maximum advantage .. in the eyes of the public ... not the eyes of the loyal party members.

Does any of that make ANY sense to you.   A leaders job is to delegate effectively.  Your upset because the man is DOING HIS FREAKING JOB.    

---

by: Nora's Tea Party @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 01:57:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

But he's not doing his job (0.00 / 0)

Sen. Sweeney's job as Democratic Senate Leader isn't to pass CC's budget.  That's CC's job.  Sen. Sweeney's job is to pass the best budget he can that represents the interests of the people who voted for him and the rest of the Democratic Senators who voted for him as leader.

Maybe Sen. Sweeney thinks CC's budget is the best possible.  If so, he should say that.

But abdicating his responsibility isn't leadership.

---

by: princetonblue @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 02:55:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

In backwards world (0.00 / 0)

I suppose, he's doing his job by not doing it at all. That explains a lot of what you have said. In fact, that's the only explanation that makes sense of what you've said.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 19:14:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

2011 elections (4.00 / 1)

That is what this is all about.  The Dems want to hang the budget which cuts aid to schools and eliminates  property tax rebates on Christie and the GOP.  Their goal is to get seniors, teachers and parents angry enough that they'll give dems a veto-proof majority in 2011 like they gave the GOP twenty years earlier.

The millionaires tax was a smart strategic move.  Now GOP legislators who voted against it will have to explain to angry seniors next year why giving tax cuts to millionaires was more important than funding property tax rebates.

The millionaires tax was predicated on using the proceeds to fund tax rebates.  Unions didn't support it because they would not have benefited except as homeowners, assuming they qualified for rebates.

Sweeney is keeping his eye on 2011.  He only needs to take away five GOP seats to gain a veto-proof majority.  That's what this is for.

http://christiegonewild.blogsp...

---

by: ken bank @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 19:48:02 PM UTC

I don't think that is politically realistic (0.00 / 0)

The Republicans will run ads saying "we stood up and took the necessary actions while the Democrats never put anything on the table."  Yes the budget is unpopular, but the Republicans will say they can make difficult decisions and the Democrats can't.  

On a personal level, I think it will be effective.  I can't see how I would want to support the Democrats if this is the "leadership" they bring.  And I'm someone who contributes to the NJ Democratic party!

---

by: princetonblue @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 19:55:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Root-canal economics" doesn't sell (0.00 / 0)

I don't think seniors losing rebates and parents seeing programs cut for their kids will buy into that.  It would be like the crew of the Bounty supporting Captain Bligh for making tough decisions.

Ironically I believe it was a Republican, Jack Kemp, who coined the phrase "root-canal economics" to describe fiscal conservatives who thought balancing the budget and making spending cuts was the top priority.

It's always about the economy and when the full impact of these budget cuts is realized voters will be screaming for blood and they won't give a rats rear end for some politician who wants to brag about decisions that others have to pay for.

http://christiegonewild.blogsp...

---

by: ken bank @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 20:15:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We shall see next election. (0.00 / 0)

Personally, I think the voters are a lot more intelligent than you're giving them credit for.   Tax and spend Democrats without a plan for fiscal accountability would seem to be a thing of the past.

---

by: princetonblue @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 23:32:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tax and spend? (0.00 / 0)

I don't see how a modest tax on million dollar incomes and using the proceeds to fund property tax rebates for seniors and low income homeowners is indicative of a lack of fiscal accountability.  All it does is shift some of the tax burden from low and middle income homeowners to high income earners.  I hardly think that would be fiscally irresponsible.

Besides, it was the same policy under Corzine and though he lost for many reasons, I doubt there was even one vote he lost because he imposed a millionaires tax for one year in order to keep funding rebates for seniors and low income homeowners.

BTW, I saw a poll recently that showed a majority of millionaires would support the tax provided they knew the money was put to good use.  I hardly think any of them would object to using the money to provide tax relief to seniors and others less fortunate.

http://christiegonewild.blogsp...

---

by: ken bank @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 03:51:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tax and Spend Democrats (4.00 / 1)

The reason why I mention this cliched phrase is that the current Democratic leadership seems content to raise taxes (millionaires tax) and spend money, but doesn't seem willing to embrace spending cuts.

I am not against the millionaire's tax nor necessarily against the proposed budget.   But if I were in the Senate, and especially if I were the leader, I would think my responsibility would be to either propose an alternative budget or support the Governor's budget.   I certainly don't think my job would be to convince a few Democrats to go along with the Republicans on a budget that I disagree with.

As a contrast, look at how the Republicans in New York are standing their ground on their principles.  It's ugly what's happening there but the NY Republicans are slowly getting their priorities implemented.  

---

by: princetonblue @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 13:41:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very good point. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: NJBlues @ Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 06:26:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No protest over cuts. (0.00 / 0)

Ken..  we just had our budget introduction (municipal) and a school board public hearing on district consolidation and NO ONE is protesting the cuts.  NO ONE... that's NOT ONE PERSON got up to talk against them.

The senior rebates are not well thought of as they are perceived as a political gimmick.   The only hoo-ha in town is which school BOD (entity) "takes over" the other as each has it's "fans".  

---

by: Nora's Tea Party @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 04:02:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How can they do that (4.00 / 1)

if the provide the votes to pass Christie's budget.  He can come back and say it had bipartisan support.  The legislature controled by the opposition party has the responsibility of coming up with its own budget, not simply rubber stamping the governor's.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 14:02:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Veto-proof majority? (4.00 / 1)

Don't forget there will be redistricting before the 2011 elections.  Democrats may be lucky to keep their majority.  You can forget about a veto proof majority.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 14:05:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like the cartoon (0.00 / 0)

I think Sweeney is using a rope-a-dope strategy.  Let Christie keep throwing enough punches and soon everybody will hate his guts and take it out on GOP candidates in 2011.

http://christiegonewild.blogsp...

---

by: ken bank @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 19:55:53 PM UTC

Sweeney Haters are non-productive (1.00 / 1)

Thankfully there appear to be some common sense posters responding here.

To those who are out of touch let me clue you in on something. ANYONE WHO PROMOTES HIGHER TAXES IS GOING TO BE DESTROYED POLITICALLY.

The fact is that the State has no money and no way to raise money except through the millionaires tax WHICH SWEENEY HAS TRIED TO DO BUT THE UNIONS ARE NOT HELPING!  

Sweeney and Oliver are trying to get some thngs restored but to the HATERS this is not good enough.

Shutdown the State . Is that a Progressive idea now???  

Sweeney and Oliver are doing the right thing. They are puting the blame for this back on Christie.

Maybe the haters should start being more realistic.  

---

by: firstamend07 @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 20:54:08 PM UTC

What one wants is leadership. (4.00 / 3)

I don't want a shutdown of the government and I haven't said that Sweeney needs to pass a millionaires tax (though I would like to see that).

But I want Sweeney to lead.  So far, in his two biggest situations, marriage equality and the budget, he has punted big time.  

One can be objective and still see that 6 months into his tenure, he's 0 for 2.  

If you weren't related to Sweeney, Firstamend, you might see things objectively.  

---

by: princetonblue @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 23:30:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"But I want Sweeney to lead" (0.00 / 0)

Leaders hand work off to others ALL THE TIME.   Part of being a good leader is the ability to say "Here, you do this."    

Any leader (executive) who tries to do it all himself, flunk's the art of delegation.    The best leaders are the best delegators.  It's actually a very slick move as you can see this one independent approves and the "I" vote is the one that wins or looses elections.

And the whole gay rights thing is SO EASY to fix, I frequently wonder if the Democrats refused to do so just to keep an issue alive to bore the public with over, and over, and over...  (yawn).

Solution = Remove the word marriage from all civil documentation and replace with "domestic partnership".   Ta-Da, instant equal rights for those who are "married" and those in "civil unions".  

A marriage is a domestic partnership.  A civil union is a domestic partnership.   Marriage is a religious word and belongs to the churches.  It should not even APPEAR in government documents.

Since I can't imagine the Democrats are stupid, it must be intentional that they overlook putting this issue to bed (grin).  Keep them angry and you get votes, solve their problems and they go to sleep with the silent majority and you loose their "energy".    

---

by: Nora's Tea Party @ Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 16:12:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey dummy (0.00 / 0)

that's why the Democrats chair the budget committee. And they have a majority on that budget because they were put there to write the budget.

You're about as independent as Christie himself.  

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 19:59:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's Ms. Dummy to you (grin) (2.00 / 1)

If I take one of those assessments up on the web, I come out as a Libertarian.    But, I don't belong to that political party as they have positions I do not agree with, like national defense.   I don't agree with the concept of isolationism.

Then I'm an environmentalist, but not a member of the Democrat party because they have things I don't agree with.

Though I'm a fiscal conservative I don't belong to the Republican party because they have other things I don't agree with.

So.. I'm independent.   Independents have two choices, the red-dogs and the blue-dogs, neither of which ever support ALL my views.

Independents switch from red to blue based on what is "most broken today".   Neither party has our loyalty, forever.  

I support what Christie is doing to cut costs.   But I also support a woman's right to choose and equal civil rights for same sex couples.  

That pretty much defines independent...  Who do you think put Christie in office?  The Republicans?  Heck no, we did, and members of the Democrat party who bailed out on Corzine incompetence.

If the Right-wing-radicals take over the Republican party and start infringing on woman/gay rights, we'll turn and rend them to shreds as well.

We'er the center.  We keep both the blue-dogs and red-dogs from getting too out of hand with their different idealistic viewpoints.  

I've chair'd committees and handing the action item off to someone on the committee who you think can get the job done best is part of being a good leader.

Actually, it's the first smart thing I've seen Sweeney do.   I begin to have hopes for him for Governor in 8 years when the Dem's get their turn again.   Maybe.   If you straighten up.  

---

by: Nora's Tea Party @ Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 04:03:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's the key (0.00 / 0)

I've chair'd committees and handing the action item off to someone on the committee who you think can get the job done best is part of being a good leader.

The problem is that the Dems already have a budget committee. They just aren't going to do the work they were sent to do. That isn't leading. Hell, it isn't even doing their freaking job.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 07:20:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Correction (4.00 / 1)

FYI, it's the "Democratic" party, not the "Democrat" party.

Blog: http://www.deciminyan.org

---

by: deciminyan @ Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 20:51:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"I want Sweeney to lead" II (0.00 / 0)

I really don't understand the point of your post.  If Sweeney, as Senate leader, delegated the work to others to do, that would be leadership.  But that's not what he's doing here.  Instead, he's saying that he disagrees with CC's budget and is ceding responsibility for putting the budget together to the Republicans (not completely however as he's going to twist some Senators arms to vote for the budget he opposes).   This represents an abdication of one's post.  Sen. Sweeney is entitled to do that, but I think he should follow that decision with his resignation as Senate leader.

---

by: princetonblue @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 00:15:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

not willing to play the blame game - or any game (0.00 / 0)

The Millionaires Tax was and is a gimmick.  The income tax code needs to be written so that people earning more than $250K are paying progressively higher income taxes, which can yield sufficient property tax relief and serve enough of those in need to be politically tolerable.

The true costs of home rule must be addressed.  Any local school district not willing to consolidate into county school districts should receive no state aid whatsoever and those who are willing to do this should be funded solely with state income taxes.

If it requires a shutdown to get this done, so be it.  If the Democrats in Trenton were willing to force a shutdown over a 1% sales tax increase and how it was spent, they have to be willing to force a shutdown over a budget that represents a complete and total abandonment of Democratic core principles.

Then again, the Democrats in Trenton have never been shy before about abandoning their party's core principles, primarily because so few of them, including but not limited to the current Senate President/Norcross puppet and current Speaker of the Assembly/Adubato puppet, have any themselves.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 13:31:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We need primary challengers (4.00 / 1)

to DINOs like Lesniak and Sweeney.  We need to do with what the teabaggers have done in Republican primaries.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 13:54:22 PM UTC

Bingo!!! (0.00 / 0)

.....and it all starts at the level where Jeff Gardner and company did it in Hawthorne.

The only way to have real Democrats in charge of our party is for them to literally take it over.

The Sweeney's and Lesniacks will never "just go away"....not so long as there is Norcross money to be had....and all manner of other money/power to be had.

Of course the real crunch comes when folks who are now reformers at the precinct level get elected to the Senate in, say, ten years time......will they have sold out?  Will they even be conscious of having sold out?  Will the look at the grass roots activists of that time as idealistic troublemakers?

It seems that the closer folks get to money and power the more difficult it becomes to hold on to their souls.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 20:27:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's a disgrace (4.00 / 1)

I've never heard a majority totally abandoning their role in the budget process, and letting the minority, in effect, lead the way.  It's both cowardly and politically stupid.  How can they criticize Christie in the future on budgetary matters if the cave like this?

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 13:56:38 PM UTC

Wedging vs. Leading (0.00 / 0)

"The Republicans will OWN this budget" (emphasis added). That is what the Democratic "leadership" is intent to achieve.  Less concerned about leading a rational debate about alternatives, which could alienate constituency groups and special interests, they are about creating a wedge issue for the November elections.  But that is stating the obvious isn't it?

---

by: Got Kids @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 15:09:59 PM UTC