Commentary 11- Moran on Corzine-Franks

From the New Jersey Star-Ledger 1/13/08

2007 July 2007 Crossing party lines to back a buddy
Posted by Tom Moran January 13, 2008 11:01AM
Categories: Politics
A most unlikely thing happened after Jon Corzine beat Bob Franks in the race for U.S. Senate in 2000 -- the two men found they genuinely liked each other.

The friendship grew over the years, as they worshipped together at Christ Church in Summit, attended football games at Giants Stadium with their families, and stole moments whenever they could to talk politics.

Now, that friendship offers the best chance in a generation for New Jersey to get past the ugly partisanship that has turned politics in this state into something like a playground fight.

Franks, a Republican, committed what many of his fellow party members consider an act of infamy last week -- he embraced the governor's plan to pay down the state's debt with a massive increase in highway tolls. And he agreed to campaign for it.

"People are calling him a traitor," says Tom Wilson, the Republican chairman. "I love Bob Franks myself. But I could not disagree with him more on this."

The irony here -- and it's a big one -- is that Franks has given his hapless Republican Party more influence than it has had in years.

It turns out that Franks, probably the most respected political strategist in the state's Republican Party, has been meeting secretly with Corzine for four months, grinding out the details during a series of about 20 meetings.

His terms were simple. If you want my support for toll hikes, he told Corzine, you need to freeze spending and put strict new limits on debt. Raising more revenue will do no good, he said, until the spending is under control.

"Bob entered this in a very early stage, and it was very clear from the start that he would engage us only if we addressed the spending part, too," says Maggie Moran, a senior aide to the governor.

That is the grand bargain that neither side has acknowledged until now.

For Franks, it was no easy sell. The governor had already spoken about the need to limit borrowing, but not a spending freeze. Franks says Corzine initially resisted, pleading that costs like health and energy are rising even faster than inflation. A freeze would force deep program cuts.

"I said, 'There is no other way to stop this arrogant overspending than for you to declare that it will stop -- no wiggle room, no ambiguity, no loopholes.'"

A few weeks ago, the governor finally agreed. And when you consider how much Corzine wants to spend money on health care, preschool and other new programs, that is no small feat.

Given that, all this Republican anger at Franks is remarkable. The man they are calling a traitor has fought a hundred wars on the Republican side. He engineered the campaign against former Gov. James Florio's tax hikes, which led to a decade of Republican control in the Legislature.

As a congressman during the 1990s, he helped draft the Contract with America and was on the budget committee that not only produced the first balanced budget in modern times, but paid down the national debt by about $500 billion. If politics were warfare, this man would have Republican medals for valor up and down his lapels.

And yet, he made the deal.

The reason, he says, is that New Jersey is in real trouble. The bill for all the reckless borrowing and spending over the last decade is finally coming due. And we don't have enough money even to repair our bridges.

Franks recalled the first meeting the governor invited him to attend, with more than a dozen lawyers and financiers at the governor's office in Newark four months ago. The learning curve was steep.

"I felt as if they were talking Swahili to me," Franks said. "But the governor was in his element. He was pointing fingers and asking questions and challenging people."

But over the weeks, in meeting after meeting, Franks became more and more resolved. This was the best of all the bad options.

Will he sway other Republicans? So far, there is no sign of that.

If Republicans stand solidly against this, Wilson said the party could beat Corzine over the head with this issue when he seeks re-election as expected in 2009. Wilson hopes that Republicans could regain power, just as they did when Florio increased taxes by $2.8 billion in 1990.

"This will be Jon Corzine's $2.8 billion tax increase," Wilson said. "It will be a significant focus of the 2009 campaign."

And there's the problem. We have lost the art of compromise, and put a reflexive opportunism in its place.

Yes, it's easy to hate this plan. It offers nothing but pain. In the next several weeks, we will undoubtedly find flaws that need repair.

But if Republican legislators present no substitute of their own, then it's fair to conclude they are playing politics with our future, looking to score points rather than solve problems. And that should be an issue in the 2009 elections, too.

As for now, Corzine has scored a coup. Plans are still taking shape, but Franks may even attend some of the 21 town meetings that Corzine has planned, and even appear in radio or TV spots.

Already, the knives are out. Some Republicans are spreading rumors that Franks is helping Corzine in return for the governor's veto of a wrongful death bill opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which Franks now represents. Franks denies that, but he's been around politics long enough to know more of that may be coming.

So far, it seems, the man has gotten nothing but grief for his efforts. Except, perhaps, for the respect of a governor who is now most definitely his friend.

Original Referenced Link


My commentary:


Posted by Zemack on 01/13/08 at 4:50PM
The joint, bi-partisan effort by Governor Corzine and Bob Franks is commendable. Unfortunately, it completely misses the mark. Spending freezes and revenue-raising schemes ignore the fundamental cause of New Jersey's slide toward disaster.

The problem is the collectivist idea that the peoples' earnings are the property of the state, to be taxed away by the latest "man with a plan" to "solve" the problems of "society". The practical result is to open the floodgates for special interests of every stripe to stream through, each seeking to impose its agenda on everyone else by the coercive power of the state using other people's tax money. Always hiding behind the evasive rationalization of "the public welfare", politicians angle, deal and jockey for the chance to grab a piece of the loot for their particular constituents, as represented by these special interest groups.

If anyone wants to understand where his hard earned money goes after it is taxed away, look behind the phony, mawkish concern for "society" or the "public welfare" and you will see the naked essence of our mixed economy... what Ayn Rand called a non-violent "cold" civil war of pressure groups each battling over the spoils produced by the individual members of the "public".

The insidious idea that it is proper to solve our problems by force...i.e., by means of other people's tax money, has become the unmentionable principle. The given. The not to be questioned. The politicians and their special interest masters do not operate in a vacuum. They are a reflection of the immoral and unjust idea described above which we, the voters, have accepted without question. In a sense, we are all both victims and profiteers on this "system". We cheer the politician who vows to "fight" the special interest pressure groups, as long as it is the other guy's special interest pressure group.

The downward cycle can be broken only by rejecting the collectivist idea that a handful of government bureaucrats can "solve" society's problems by usurping the rights of society's components, the individuals who make it up. Every individual is an equal member of the "public". By using his own money to act on his own judgement, in pursuit of his own rational self-interest and personal welfare (and that of his family), he is, in effect, acting in the public welfare. There is no conflict between the individual and the public. The individual, every individual, is the public. To say that the individual citizen acting in his own self-interest, with his own money, in areas such as education and health care is contrary to the public interest is a blatant contradiction-in-terms.

Rather than worry about "how much Corzine wants to spend [other people's] money on health care, preschool and other new programs", we should be looking at ways to keep the money, and decision-making power, in the hands of the people who know their lives best... the people whose money he wants. Mr. Moran himself pointed toward a start in this direction in a previous column (Vouchers are the obvious choice) in which he advocated parental vouchers for pre-school to "break the monopoly of the public school system." I would build on this approach, but with tax credits rather than state-funded vouchers, in areas like K-12 education and healthcare. (Other related steps need to be taken as well, such as sweeping away state benefit mandates that drive up the cost of health insurance, and opening up the state to free market competition from outside plans.)

A person's earnings belong to him. No one has any fundamental right to the earnings of others. The hypocritical "activists" who seek to "do good" with the earnings of others and the power of government, and the pressure-group warfare they spawn is the fundamental problem. When we recognize this fact, we will be on our way to recovery.

As far the charge of Bob Franks being a "traitor" is concerned, there is unfortunately an element of truth to this claim. But not in the way the charge is being used. The Republican Party, by and large, wants to use the Governor's tax hikes as a path to power in Trenton, but not for any kind of principled purpose. By helping to "solve" the state's fiscal mess, he is seen as taking away a GOP weapon for gaining power for power's sake.

The real issue is that in using his influence to help the governor here, he is in effect helping to preserve the status quo in Trenton. Without a principled attack on the fundamental cause of the problems confronting our state, which I outlined above, he is simply clearing the way for a resumption of the expansion of welfare statism in New Jersey. This is his real "treason".


Other commentary:

Posted by notebene on 01/13/08 at 8:09PM
ZEMACK: polemics never trumps politics. Your answers are for long run structural reform. Right now it's trench warfare with the well oiled Wall Street high cost high risk Plan dreamed up to maximize available free revenues and provide Corzine with a major fiscal accomplishment suitable for his resume as potential Treasury Secy. This is raw politics and only raw local political revolution will suffice. Fill every county meeting with questions and more facts. Enlist private financial advisors to represent tax payers not the vested interests. This plan can be fully vetted and alternate strategies can be developed. Can you believe the arrogance of the Corzine "my plan or bankruptcy." He should know better that there is always a plan B that may in fact be more cost effective. Don't allow this rush to judgement. The people must demand the right to vote this plan up or down.


My Commentary:

Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by Zemack on 01/14/08 at 7:14PM

"ZEMACK: polemics never trumps politics. Your answers are for long run structural reform."

With due respect, NOTEBENE, you've got it exactly reversed. Politics does not operate in a vacuum. It is an effect, an end result, a reflection of the fundamental philosophical principles accepted by a culture or society. Whether one identifies those basic ideas explicitly or not does not negate this fact. Consequently, only by identifying and challenging the underlying ideas that brought our state to its current predicament can one begin to offer practical solutions.

The pragmatic, range of the moment, "practical" political "trench warfare" approach is what got us here in the first place and won't do any longer. Ignoring the long-term consequences of short-term fixes leads to long-term disaster. What's needed is ideological trench warfare, because only by reference to political philosophy can long-term consequences be intelligently discussed and predicted. This is what I am attempting to bring to NJ Voices. "Polemics" (a vigorous debate over political philosophy...i.e., the proper role of government, in this case) is just what the doctor ordered. "[L]ong run structural reform" is desperately needed and can only begin on the battleground of ideas. Identify your political-philosophical principles and then offer practical solutions tied to those principles.

"Enlist private financial advisors to represent tax payers not the vested interests."

Which taxpayers? Who are the "vested interests" if not taxpayers? Whom do they represent, if not taxpayers? Who would be responsible for paying the financial advisers, if not the taxpayers? Wouldn't these advisors then themselves become another vested interest, feeding off of the taxpayers?

Anyway, the "vested interests" are not the cause, but the consequence of a runaway Trenton taxing machine and the redistributive policies that it spawned. They are merely opportunists flocking to Trenton to grab a piece of the tax-funded honeypot.

To really put the "taxpayers" first, the Corzine plan should be inverted. Instead of freezing spending, a meaningless exorcise in window dressing, how about freezing state revenue intake from all sources at the current level. No new "revenue enhancers". Corzine wants to get voter approval for new state borrowing. How about a 2/3 voter approval for tax increases? Then, cut state spending until the budget comes into line with revenues, and freeze it at that level. This proposal could be a good starting point. Cutting or eliminating state programs to reach that goal will raise a lot of hackles. But a basic fact must be recognized. Production comes before consumption. Keep that principle in mind when you hear that it can't be done because the state's "needs" won't be met. Production comes before need. Sacrificing the productive (the taxpayers) to the "needs" of tax-funded beneficiaries is a moral and practical inversion. How will the state's needs be met after the economy implodes under the pressure of ever-rising taxes? Putting the productive ahead of the recipients of unearned benefits is a good principle to fight for, even if in many cases they are one and the same person.


miscellaneous:

Posted by TheBullhorn on 01/16/08 at 11:53AM

Warning: a quasi-Randroid has entered the conversation . . . not that I object, you understand. I happen to be a fan of political economy and philosophy and I do accept the notion that thought must precede action and that all political activity is based upon either overt or tacit acceptance of some basic principle of political philosophy, just as the Z-person suggests.

But hereafter, do expect some prolix prose in here.

[prolix means "given to or indulging in long and wordy discourses". I looked it up.]

Posted by Zemack on 01/17/08 at 4:17PM

Randroid! I like that, TheBullhorn. I think I might call myself Zemack the Randroid!

And yes, I am an admirer of Rand and her philosophy.

P.S.- You should see my comments before I edit them


Posted by TheBullhorn on 01/18/08 at 8:25AM
Z-dude:

There are lots of people who are admirers of Rand and her ideas, however . . .

Judging strictly from the evidence provided by your writing, methinks you understate the nature of your attachment to Ms. Rand . . . I'd label you an adherent . . . a "Randroid" is the common label for your level of attachment.

Not only that, you apparently are a student of her ideas as well . . . I'll bet you've read her non-fiction stuff.

I suffered through all that stuff, too. Much to commend it. But have mercy: if all you're going to do is to repeat her thinking on the evils of statism and collectivism (at some length, I might add), why not just provide a link to her writing on the subject? Or at least, give her proper attribution . . .

Just a friendly suggestion . . .


Posted by Zemack on 01/19/08 at 1:47PM
TheBullhorn:

I was under the impression that your "Randroid" comment was an attempt at humor, since I had never heard that expression before. Although you may not have intended it that way, that word has derogatory overtones. It means either (A) that one blindly and uncritically accepts Objectivism at face value, or (B) that one accepts (or "adheres" to) Objectivism fully and consistently based on long-term study, understanding, and reflection. The first is true of many, but certainly not me. Not after the 40 years since I first read Rand that it took me to come around to my current viewpoint. The second is true of me, at least as far as my understanding of the basic abstract philosophical tenets of Objectivism are concerned. If "Randroid" means the first, it is a disparaging term. If it means the second, then it is disparaging to anyone who holds a consistent set of principles, Objectivist or not.

As to "if all you're going to do is to repeat her thinking on the evils of statism and collectivism (at some length, I might add), why not just provide a link to her writing on the subject? Or at least, give her proper attribution . . ." My website intro explicitly explains that I am a "student of Objectivism" and that the opinions expressed by me are from an Objectivist perspective, as I understand it. Proper links and credits are given to Rand or anyone else I quote or refer to in my posts. The link to my blog is provided in my profile here for anyone interested, and I shouldn't have to document the genesis of the ideas I express every time I post a comment (you complain they are too long already!).

As far as "repeat[ing] her thinking on the evils of statism and collectivism" is concerned, give me a break, TheBullhorn. Whether one's ideas are his original thought or are inspired by someone else, is it not proper to advocate for one's beliefs? After all, what is the purpose of free expression and NJVoices?