Such A Deal

Loch Arbour and Allenhurst Eyeing A Merger

The Asbury Park Sun reports that the Village of Loch Arbour is moving forward with its plan to seek a merger with its neighbor to the north, the Borough of Allenhurst.

Loch Arbour is .1 square mile and home to 196 people, according to the 2010 U.S. census.  The metropolis of Allenhurst in three times the size of of Loch Arbour by land mass, but has a much lower population density of 496 residents per the most recent census.   Should the towns merge, they would form a municipality just south of Deal, the 1.3 square mile borough that is home to 750 year round residents.

Loch Arbour has a municipal budget of $1,243,058.  That’s $6,342 per capita or $25,368 per family of four.  Allenhurst’s municipal budget in $4,344,268; $8,760 per capita.

Obviously, it is not municipal spending that is prompting the 196 Loch Arbourians to give up their sovereignty.  It is school spending. 

Loch Arbour sends its 20 school age children to the Ocean Township Schools. The Corzine administration invalidated a school funding agreement between Loch Arbour and Ocean Township that was worth about $300,000 per year.  The new formula required Loch Arbour to pay school taxes based upon their property values.  That $300K became $1.6 million.    Allenhurst sends it school kids to the Asbury Park school system, an Abbott District that the entire state subsidizes.  If the merger goes through, property taxes in Loch Arbour will fall from an average of about $24,000 per home to less than $9000.   Not bad, relative to property taxes throughout the rest of the state, for homes valued at over $1.4 million on average. 

• Tweet

Is Socialism God’s Preferred Form Of Government?

By Art Gallagher

Michael Riley, a Baptist minister and member of The Asbury Park Press editorial board says “Jesus was a card-carrying socialist” in his Only Human column in today’s print edition.  The column is not yet on the app’s web site.

Someone better inform Barack Obama who insists that he is a Christian, that he is not a socialist, and that he was born in Hawaii.

But Riley is not writing for Obama.  He’s writing to Republicans:

“I hate to break it to the far-right wing in this country (or as it is more commonly called these days, the Republican Party), but Jesus was a car-carrying socialist.  Or, he would have been, if cards had been invented, and if pockets to carry the card had been around and if the word socialism had made it into the language in the first century.

I have no doubt about it.”

I have doubts about what Riley understands about Jesus, government and freedom.   That there will be a slew of cancelled subscriptions to The Press as a result of Riley’s column, I have no doubt.

The first thing that struck me about Riley’s column is that he is talking about Jesus in the past tense.   Even a Jesuit trained lapsed Catholic like me believes in a Living God.  Why is this Baptist minister telling The Press’s remaining readers that Jesus is dead?   Didn’t we just celebrate His resurrection two weeks ago?

Riley paraphrases the Gospel of Luke and Karl Marx to make his case.

“One thing you lack,” Riley quotes Luke quoting Jesus talking to the rich, “go and sell all you possess and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

“But Jesus was a conservative compared to those who followed him,” Riley continues in the past tense again, “In the book of Acts, we read, ‘All the believers were together and had everything in common,  They sold property and possession to give to anyone who had need.’

No one claimed that any of their possession were their own; they shared everything they had.

That is right out of the Marxist playbook: ‘from each according to his ability to each according to his need.’  And woe to anyone who tried to wiggle out of the deal.”

Without getting all theological and politically scientific on Michael, the Nudnik of Neptune, let me just point out two key words from his paraphrase of Luke paraphrasing Jesus that hopefully will set him straight:

Sell and Give.   Both involve a concept that is fundamental to Christianity and foreign to Marxism: Choice.

Never mind that Christians believe that God created Man (and Woman) and that Marxists believe than Man created God.  Let’s look at selling and giving.

In order for Jesus’s followers to sell all of their possessions, they first had to have them.  Hmmm, how would that happen in a Marxist socialist society?

In order for the rich to give to the poor, someone would have to buy those possessions.  More than likely someone else who was rich.

While Riley starts his column with no doubt that the dead Jesus was a socialist, he seems to have some doubt as he concludes:

Obviously, human sin makes this kind of socialistic/communist economic system unworkable over the long haul and in large groups.  But capitalism is a sinner’s banquet as well, full of abuse and greed and loopholes that turn into nooses for the poor.

The point here is that socialism is not necessarily a dirty word.  It seems to be sort of what God was hoping for as a model for his people.  So let’s not get all high and mighty about using it as an epithet.

How about we do get high and mighty about Liberty, Choice, Charity and Responsibility.

How about the preachers and ministers do their jobs and spread The Word and convert the sinners so that capitalism, the only system that has ever worked and creates genuine sharing and empowerment as opposed to the compelled sharing and mediocrity of Marxism, can work better for the rich and the poor.

Riley’s heart might be in the right place, but his head is a dark place.

• Tweet

Turning up the heat on Middlesex County pay to play scandal

Politickernj writers Darryl Isherwood and Max Pizarro posted an in depth piece yesterday afternoon that exposes an incestuous web of influence driving planning, zoning and development approvals before the Middlesex County Freeholder Board and several municipal planning boards in the county.  

State Senator Bob Smith of Piscataway is the leader of the PACs that fund the campaigns of the Freeholders and municipal officials who approve the applications.  The applicants are donors to the PACs.  Smith is the applicants’ attorney.

It’s all legal.  And no one would know about it if not for Harold Kane of Monroe Township painstakingly examining thousands of pages of ELEC reports to find out where all the Middlesex Democratic money was coming from and the good journalists at Politickernj and The Star Ledger following the money.

Smith, the Senator working the system, and Peter Barnes, the Assemblyman and Middlesex County Democratic Chairman who’s candidates benefit from the system, know the solution to this “craziness.”   Barnes said that “any impetus to close the hole lies with the legislature.”  Smith said, “There is a solution to the craziness we have now and that is publicly financed elections – or complete transparency. “In New Jersey, we have nothing but chaos. The state needs one set standard across the state.”

Where is their legislation?   Smith and Barnes are both powerful members of the legislature.  They obviously know how the work the system.  They know how to fix it. 

Sponsor the legislation gentlemen.  Publicly financed elections won’t work.  Complete transparency will.

Here’s a campaign finance system that would be transparent:

1) Remove all limits on campaign contributions.

2) Require that all candidates and campaigns disclose all contributions of any amount on a dedicated website within 24 hours of receipt.

3) Competing campaigns, good citizens like Kane, and good journalist will examine the donations and expose influence.  Voters will decide if the influence is acceptable of not.

Correction: Peter Barnes, Jr, the Middlesex Democratic Chairman is no longer in the legislature.  His son, Peter III is an Assemblyman.

Now there are two Barnes and a Smith who can advocate for legislation that creates complete transparency.

• Tweet

Did Christie’s Popularity Plunge 11 Points in One Week?

Which poll is closer to reality?  Quinnipiac or Monmouth?

How two respected independent pollsters could have such differing results for Governor Chris Christie’s approval ratings has been the subject of quite a bit of chatter this week since Monmouth University released their poll indicating that Christie’s ratings were 11 points lower than reported by the Qunnipiac poll released last week.  Quinnipiac reported Chrisite’s approval rating at 59%-36% while Monmouth said that 50% of registered voters approve of the job that Christie’s doing compared to 38% who do not.

There’s been enough buzz about the difference that Patrick Murray, Polling Director at Monmouth, posted a piece on his blog (cross posted on Politickernj), that took a swipe at Quinnipiac for framing their approval question in such a way that Christie’s numbers would be higher.  Murray said that because Quinnipiac first asked if Christie would be a good selection as a Vice Presidential nominee, respondents were more likely to give him higher marks when asked to evaluate his job performance.

Quinnipiac, on the other hand plays around with the order in which they ask the governor’s job rating question.  In 8 polls over the past year, they asked Gov. Christie’s job rating as the first question in 3 cases and the 3^rd question in one case.  For the remaining four polls, the governor’s rating question was slotted from #10 and #13 in their questionnaire.

When it was the first question, the governor’s positive job rating was only 44% to 47%.  At the number 3 slot, it was 53%.  At #10 or later in the interview, it ranged from 55% to 59%.  It’s worth noting that the lower poll numbers came early last year, and were either closer to or even lower than other polls conducted at that time.  Hmmm.

In the most recent Quinnipiac poll, one of the questions preceding Gov. Christie’s rating presented him as a potential nominee for Vice President.  In other words, the survey framed the governor as a national figure before asking voters to rate his job performance.  Could this be why his rating among Republican voters in particular shot up to an astronomical 92%?

Pollsters know that job approval ratings can be impacted by the context of a poll interview.  That’s why most pollsters try to place these key trend questions in the same place in every questionnaire.  This increases our confidence that any changes in a politician’s ratings are due to real shifts in opinion and not an artifact of questionnaire inconsistencies.

I’m willing to venture that first naming Chris Christie as Mitt Romney’s potential running mate before asking New Jerseyans to rate their governor might have had a wee bit to do with the two polls’ divergent trends.

Mickey Carroll, Director of the Quinnipac Polling Institute, is not interested in getting into a pissing match with Murray.  “Patrick Murray is a very good pollster,” Carroll said three times in a seven minute phone interview with MMM.  “Every poll is different, something could have happened in the week in between the two polls,” Carroll said, “we asked the question the same way.”

When told that Murray said that Quinnipiac framed the approval question by first asking a question about Christie being a potential VP, Carroll said, “that could make a difference, but I think we asked the approval question first. Didn’t we?  Patrick Murray is a good pollster, a savvy analyst and a smart guy.”

Republican strategists, who would only speak on background, were quick to criticise Murray and side with Quinnipiac.

“The Quinnipiac poll from last week showing the Governor’s job approval at 59% is closer to reality,” said one strategist who cited internal GOP numbers,  “The problem with the Monmouth University poll is that it samples, ADULTS, rather than registered voters, or better still, likely voters.   It is cheaper and easier to poll adults, because there  are a lot more of them and they are easier to qualify.   It is harder, and more expensive, to find and poll a likely voter – especially a likely voter who votes in non-Presidential year elections.”

When told that Murray blamed the difference on how Quinnipiac framed the question, the same strategist said, “Patrick is out of his mind.”

In fairness to Murray, MMM verified that Quinnipiac and Monmouth both sample adults who then self identify as registered voters.  However, on their website Quinnipiac says that they ask screening questions, plural, to determine who is a registered voter.  Murray said Monmouth only asks one question to determine if a respondent is registered to vote or not. He said that 80% of his respondents tend to be voters.  78% of New Jersey adults are registered to vote.

In his blog post, Murray acknowledged that his Monmouth poll results are consistently more favorable to Democrats while Quinnipiac’s are consistently more favorable to Republicans.  MMM asked Murray how that could happen consistently if both polls were using random computer generated phone numbers.  “Is it how you weight the sample?” we asked. “That’s part of it,” Murray said, “the rest is that we (Monmouth) call a greater percentage of cell phones.  Cell phone users tend to be younger and more Democratic.”

With that answer, that weighting his samples more heavily towards Democrats and cell phone users, Murray seemed to be confirming the Republican complaints.

“That’s fine, I’m the only one who consistently asks the trend question in the same place,”  was Murray’s retort, “that’s polling 101.”

Another Republican strategist was more upset about how Murray wrote up his poll release that he was with the numbers.  “Political sands are shifting?” asked the Republican.   “It’s a margin of error shift!  Murray sounds like he is writing press releases for the Democratic State Committee, not acting as an independent pollster from an esteemed New Jersey university.”

A third Republican scoffed at the notion of even taking Murray’s numbers seriously, pointing out how badly Monmouth Gannett polled the 2009 gubernatorial race between Chrisite, former Governor Jon Corzine and Chris Daggett.  “Murray’s last poll in that election had Corzine winning by 2 points and Daggett getting 8% of the vote.  Christie won by 5 points a few days later.”

MMM set out to find a Democratic strategist to weigh in on the difference between the two polls, but no one would talk to us.  “Try Patrick Murray,” was the best answer we got.

UPDATE

Murray called shortly after this piece was posted to ask that if his 2009 gubernatorial results were going to be used against him, that his correct calling of the 2010 CD-6 congressional race also be mentioned. 

During the 2010 congressional race, MMM analysed a Monmouth Poll that indicated Congressman Frank Pallone was leading Anna Little by 11%.  MMM concluded, using Monmouth’s data, that Pallone’s lead should be 9%.  Murray agreed, “your turnout assumptions are as good as mine,” he said.  Things got funky when the Little campaign issued a press release announcing that Murray had revised his numbers based upon MMM’s analysis and that Pallone’s lead was then in single digits.  Murray issued a release stating that his “official” numbers hadn’t changed.  He issued a later poll that indicated Pallone’s lead was down to 7% and in the final days of the campaign said a Little victory “could well happen.”

When Pallone eventually won by 11%, Murray said he was right all along.

It was all great fun for MMM, except that Murray stopped taking our calls for a while.

In his call this afternoon, Murray reiterated that the primary difference between the recent Quinnipiac poll and his poll about Christie’s approval ratings, is that Quinnipiac changed their methodology by altering the order of the questions.

Regarding polling adults vs polling registered voters, Murray said he was not in the business of electing or reelecting any candidate.  He said his job is to report on what New Jersey residents are thinking.

Murray also said that his “poltical sands are shifting” comment in the poll release was a reference to New Jersey Democrats who being more aggressive in how than they go after Christie than they have been in the past.  It was not a reference to the public’s approval of Christie, he said.

• Tweet

Good reading

Why Do They Want to Pick on Ann Romney?

Karin McQuillan, a retired psychotherapist and author who served in the Peace Corps in Senegal, writes at American Thinker that Hillary Rosen’s recent rant that Ann Romey never worked a day he her life is part of the Obama political strategy rooted in the politics of envy.  Worse, she says the strategy is deeply rooted in Obama’s psyche as a result of his upbringing.

I guess that’s a theory that one would expect from a psychotherapist.  McQuillan makes a fascinating case.

A FUNNY GAME OF TABLE TENNIS

Closer to home, our friends at InTheLobby have a hilarious account of how Port Authority Deputy Executive Director Bill Baroni turned the table on U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg during the senator’s hearing this week over the fairness of toll increases and patronage at PA.

Turns out that Lautenberg as a former commissioner of the PA he had a free EZ pass for decades and didn’t pay tolls from 1978 through 2006 when the PA stopped issuing free EZ passes to cronies.

Regarding patronage, a former Lautenberg campaign staffer joined PA in 2002, and U.S. Senator Bob Menendez’s son is an intern at PA now.

West Virginia U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller came to Lautenberg’s defense.  New Jersey Democrats have been silent, just as they were during Lautenberg’s dust up with State Senate President Steve Sweeney and George Norcross over the Rutgers-Rowan merger earlier this month.

The InTheLobby piece quotes The Asbury Park Press and The Star Ledger.

• Tweet

5.7% turnout for school board elections

Marlboro and Neptune Township held school board elections yesterday.   Of the 45,035 registered voters in the the two townships, 2,618 voted.

By far most of those voters were from Marlboro, where over 2000 people came out.  In Neptune, less than 600 of aproximately 16,000 registered voters came out.

As of February 18, there was 24,926 registered voters in Marlboro and 15,865 in Neptune Township, according to Labels and Lists.  The county website says there were 45, 035 eligible voters in yesterday’s election.  Where those 4,244 new voters came from since February could be the subject of a future column.  In the meantime GOP leaders should take note that someone seems to be having a voter registration drive in Democratic towns.

For now I’d like to speculate about why there was a close to normal 10% turnout in Marlboro while only 3% turned out in Neptune.

One obvious reason could be competition.  In Marlboro, there were 7 candidates for 3 seats on the school board.  In Neptune, the 3 seats were not contested.

A not so obvious reason could be campaign spending.  In Marlboro one of the candidates, Bonniesue Rosenwald, mailed out a professionally produced post card late last week which included an endorsement from Mayor Jon Hornick.  Rosenwald, an incumbent, squeaked out a third place finish by 13 votes to retain her seat.

Some in Marlboro were upset that Rosenwald and Hornick politicised a school board election.  I say politicisation increases participation.

With the recent and perennial hubbub about campaign spending and pay to play, few of the critics of the pay to play/PAC/wheeling system are offering alternatives.  No one is talking about the public service campaign spending provides.

If not for campaign signs littering our roadways and lawns and mail boxes filled with glossy advertisements  few people would know when to interrupt their routines to vote.

With the arguable exception of presidential and gubernatorial elections, the media, local and national, does a horrible job of covering campaigns.  The media looks as electioneering as a revenue source,  not a story to be covered as if democracy depends upon it.

Current campaign finance laws thwart participation by limiting contributions and making the process more complicated.  The process is so complicated that only the most motivated and self interested contribute.  Recently, pundits at The Star Ledger, The Asbury Park Press and even the usually smarter than that InTheLobby criticised the John Wisniewski/Middlesex County PAC practices for violating the spirit of campaign finance laws.   Hogwash.  The complex system that reduces transparency is the spirit of our campaign finance laws.

If our leaders really want to reform the system, rather than give lip service to ethics while voting for a bill with “loopholes” intentionally written in, the would create a simple system with full and immediate disclosure required.

• Tweet

Monmouth Poll: Christie Approval Numbers 51%-35%

By Art Gallagher

Governor Chris Christie’s approval numbers have slipped 5% since February in a Monmouth University/NJ Press Media poll released this morning.

51% of New Jersey residents approve of the governor’s performance compared to 35% who don’t, according to the poll.  Among registered voters, 50% approve of Christie and 38% do not.

In the February Monmouth Poll Christie earned a 52%-38% rating from all NJ residents and 55% to 37% from registered voters.

Today’s Monmouth Poll results are markedly different than the Quinnipiac Poll released last week which indicates that Christie is enjoying his highest approval numbers ever at 59%-36%.

One thing that is consistent between the two polls:  New Jersey residents prefer Senate President Sweeney’s property tax relief plan over Governor Christie’s 10% income tax cut.

I don’t have time this morning to study the two polls to account for the difference and it’s too early to call the pollsters for comment.  Anyone who can account for the difference in the polls before I get to it is welcome to do so in the comments.

• Tweet

April 17th

There will be Board of Education elections in Marlboro and Neptune Township tomorrow, April 17th.  The rest of Monmouth County school board elections have been moved to the November general election.

Also, April 17th is the last day to register to vote for the municipal non-partisan elections that will take place in Allenhurst, Deal and Keansburg on May 8th.

• Tweet

Black Kids In Asbury Park Shooting Each Other, Part One: Why It’s Happening

By Tommy DeSeno, also published in the April 12, 2012 edition of the triCityNews

We were warned in 1965 but failed to listen.  In that year Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of the most respected Democrats to ever live, issued a report to the Department of Labor that has become known as “The Moynihan Report.”  It was entitled “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.”

Brevity requires me to get right to the paper’s thesis, simply stated therein:

The fundamental problem, in which this is most clearly the case, is that of family structure. The evidence – not final, but powerfully persuasive – is that the Negro family in the urban ghettos is crumbling. A middle class group has managed to save itself, but for vast numbers of the unskilled, poorly educated city working class the fabric of conventional social relationships has all but disintegrated.

Deteriorating “family structure” is the problem.  What specifically is Moynihan referring to?   The absence of a father in the Black household:

In essence, the Negro community has been forced into a matriarchal structure which, because it is out of line with the rest the American society, seriously retards the progress of the group as a whole, and imposes a crushing burden on the Negro male and, in consequence, on a great many Negro women as well.

It has to be acknowledged that the ideal situation to live in, giving the most likely chance for success of a family, is the traditional nuclear family with a father and mother supporting one another in the household.  As Moynihan points out, that isn’t a knock on other matriarchal societies.  However, when a majority in a nation is not matriarchal, and the minority is, that is devastating, even emasculating, to the male minority.

It is recognized that human situations won’t allow all to grow up in a nuclear family.  Also, since we are talking about a sample of 300 million people in America, you will be able to find some examples of children from single mother households who have done better than children from nuclear families.  That, however, is highlighting the exception while hiding the rule.

Statistics, as pointed out in The Moynihan report, reveal that the nuclear Black family with both parents in the household see their children grow up on average with higher IQs, less crime and more financial success than their single mother counterparts.

The report notes:

The role of the family in shaping character and ability is so pervasive as to be easily overlooked. The family is the basic social unit of American life; it is the basic socializing unit. By and large, adult conduct in society is learned as a child.

What role should young boys learn from their fathers?  The Moynihan Report quotes cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead:

“In every known human society, everywhere in the world, the young male learns that when he grows up one of the things which he must do in order to be a full member of society is to provide food for some female and her young.”

Moynihan adds to that:  This pattern is not immutable, however: it can be broken, even though it has always eventually reasserted itself Replicas Inflatable Cemento.

It couldn’t be clearer that the pattern among poor blacks has been toward households empty of fathers.  Unfortunately, despite the devastation it can bring to the children, fatherless Black households are growing.  Black children are learning more often than not that leaving families behind is an acceptable choice (I acknowledge the growing trend among white fathers today too).

Back in 1965 when the Moynihan Report was written, on average 36% of Black children were living in broken homes at any given moment.  That number has risen since then for both whites and non-whites, but today’s numbers for Blacks are alarming:  Nationwide 70% of Black children are born into single parent households, while in Asbury Park estimates have been as high as 90%.  The poor Black family has continued to disintegrate.

Understand, so there is no mistake, that Moynihan finds no shortcoming of the Black male or female: Genetically, the intelligence potential is distributed for Black infants in the same proportions as Icelanders, Chinese and every other group.

However, when testing Blacks alone, the pattern is clear that Black children from stable families fare far better than those from fatherless homes. 

Included in the areas where Blacks from broken homes fall short is crime.  Moynihan quotes several sources, including a study that showed 3/4ths – or twice the expected ratio – of Philadelphia’s Black juvenile delinquents came from one parent households. 

Moynihan was careful to note the outside pressures on the Black male, including segregation, alienation and prejudice in obtaining employment.  His point, however, is that the Black child from a stable family is given the emotional support to deal with it, while the child of the single parent family is often left with a hopelessness and quitting attitude based upon the actions of his absent father.

The shooting of young people in Asbury Park is not occurring to middle class children with stable homes.   This behavior was presciently predicted by Moynihan.  

So who is to blame for Asbury Park’s fatherless homes and children shooting each other?  I have narrowed it down to 35 people here in the City.   In the next issue of triCityNews, I will name names and tell you who is at fault.

• Tweet

The Democratic Laundromat: Wisniewski’s Washing and Spinning

By Harold Kane and Art Gallagher

The legal money laundering of Assemblyman John Wisniewski in Middlesex County has been in the news this month as Politickernj and The Star Ledger brought to light the how Middlesex Democrats are circumventing state and local pay to pay laws by having government vendors, primarily the Middlesex based CME engineering firm, fund campaigns through PACs when the campaign finance laws prohibited contributions directly to the campaigns in jurisdictions where they were earning large fees.

Wisniewski, of Sayreville, is the Chairman of the State Democratic Party and the Assembly Transportation Committee. 

Despite the fact that the PACs are run by his former staff members and fund campaigns in his district and county, Wisniewski says he has nothing to do with them.  If that is true, the State Democratic Committee needs a new chairman.  If it’s not true, the Democrats still should get a new chairman and the people of the 19^th legislative district should elect a new Assemblyman.

Also in the news this month are the guilty pleas of insurance broker Frank Gartland of Federal Hill Risk Management.  Gartland plead guilty to giving $2 million in bribes to Toms River School Superintendent Michael Ritacco, and to theft by deception and money laundering for bilking the Perth Amboy Board of Education, an Abbott district, out of more than $2 million.

Gartland also admitted to making illegal contributions to the campaigns of former Assemblyman and former Perth Amboy Mayor Joe Vas through “straw” contributors.  Vas is now serving a 6 ½  year sentence for funneling illegal money from a real estate scheme into his unsuccessful 2006 congressional campaign.  Vas was Wisniewski’s running mate and they represented the 19^th district together in the Assembly from 2004-2009.

While all of this bribery, stealing and money laundering was going on, Gartland and his associates were also donating heavily to the Middlesex County PACS that Wisniewski says he has nothing to do with.

Wisniewski and Port Authority Deputy Executive Director Bill Baroni, a former Republican State Senator, got into it this week over the PACS and Wisniewski using his authority as chairman of the Assembly Transportation Committee to issue subpoenas requiring that Port Authority executives appear before his committee.  Baroni accused Wisniewski of a “shakedown” because CME did not receive preferential treatment while pitching their engineering services to Port Authority.

In response, Wisniewski said “the truth is an expendable commodity” for the “Christie character assassination team”

Let’s see some truth from Wisniewski regarding these PACS, including what quid pro quo Gartland received for his “contributions.”

• Tweet