Another side to the new anti-bullying law
By Dan Jacobson, also published in the September 9 edition of the triCityNews
I just can’t help myself.
When there’s an angle to a controversy that no one else will touch, I’ve got to reach out and grab it with both hands.
I just can’t stand it when a media horde goes off hell bent in one direction and misses a big part of a story. Add in a scrum of politicians riding the wave for their own advantage, and I get sucked in that much more.
I just call it like I see it. That’s what I’ve always done as a Publisher. It’s what I’m doing now as an Independent candidate for the State Assembly.
So let’s get the controversy going with the state’s new anti-bullying law, which took effect in our schools on September 1.
Passed overwhelmingly by the state legislature and signed by the Governor, the law is the toughest in the nation to stop bullying. Make no mistake. This is a huge problem.
It’s no longer some bullies in a schoolyard. With Facebook pages, websites and texting, bullying has moved to cyberspace. You could have dozens, if not hundreds, of kids tormenting another child. It’s sick.
So anti-bullying advocates joined with Garden State Equality – the state’s leading gay and lesbian civil rights organization – to get the new law passed. Given that this paper is a big supporter of Garden State Equality, and that the media reports were all glowing, the anti-bullying law sure sounded like a no brainer to me, even if I didn’t know all the details.
Meanwhile, some right-wing Republicans were expressing opposition – I assumed because Garden State Equality was in favor. What a bunch of sick bigots, I thought.
Then a couple weeks ago, I was talking with powerful Republican blogger Art Gallagher of Highlands. Art and I share a libertarian streak on economics, and often agree on policy. As I’m leaving, he says that the anti-bullying law will be a costly mess to implement, and school districts are up in arms over it. An agitated Gallagher claimed it’s a complete overreaction to the problem.
I dismissed his comments as the rantings of a red neck Republican.
Five days later, the New York Times – of all newspapers – runs a front page story reporting that New Jersey schools are struggling with the costs and burdens of implementing the law!
I was shocked.
“I think this has gone well overboard,” Richard G. Bozza, executive director of the New Jersey Association of School Administrators told the Times. “Now we have to police the community 24 hours a day. Where are the people and the resources to do this?”
The Times article stated that while many parents and educators welcome the new law, others say it “reaches much too far, and complain that they have been given no additional resources to meet its mandates.”
Of course, when all the politicians got up at the press conferences to brag about passing the anti-bullying law, no one – including the mainstream media – told us the other side of the story. Specifically, that the state was providing no money to local school districts to implement it.
Hey, it’s easy to be a hero when someone else is picking up the tab.
And if we can’t get the full story on the anti-bullying law, imagine how screwed we get on legislation with much less noble purposes. Unfortunately, no politician was willing to expose themselves politically as having reservations on the anti-bullying law. It’s like questioning Mom and Apple Pie.
Of course, the media is too dumb to pick up on the concerns, with the exceptions of the New York Times after the fact and local Republican blogger Art Gallagher, a most improbable combination indeed. (Check out the Times article on-line entitled “Bullying Law Puts New Jersey Schools on Spot” on August 30.)
Let me be clear: I still believe the anti-bullying law is a good thing. There’s a broad public benefit – a real chance to incorporate an ethic against bullying into our culture. This is not a bullshit piece of legislation. But there should have been an honest effort to pay for it. That would have exposed the bill to more rigorous analysis, and increased the chances that any parts not cost-beneficial would have been dropped. And it would not have left local school districts, already burdened with budget cuts, to pay the tab.
Before the New York Times article, I would have said I’m for the anti-bullying law, based on who was advocating for it, as well as the severity of the problem it attacks. As one sponsor recently said, “How could anyone be against this?”
But this is a great example of how not everything is exactly what it seems in government. Look, I’d rather not go down to Trenton and be the crank who always votes no on politically popular legislation that everyone else supports.
Yet I can see that happening. I absolutely refuse to sit there and lie with a straight face. If I see bill after bill come by me to make politicians heroes – while handing the tab to someone else to pay – I’d probably start voting no on every one.
Don’t know if I’d have been at that stage with the anti-bullying law. At the least, I would have offered amendments on ways to pay for it – and get the legislature on record as literally passing the buck. Maybe doing that enough times on enough bills would get the media to take notice.
Not taking responsibility to pay for what we spend has got to stop, no matter how noble the cause. It’s bullshit. If something like the anti-bullying law is that important – and it is – then give the local school districts the money to pay for it. But perhaps that would have doomed the law. How quaint. How hypocritical.
Bleeding heart liberals and red neck Republicans can all unite on what I’m saying. After all, not taking fiscal responsibility is what causes taxes to go up. And when the money inevitably runs out, it’s the truly vulnerable who always get screwed — they don’t have the votes, the campaign contributions or the media clout to protect themselves.
So remember this column the next time you see politicians doing what they do best: looking like heroes at a press conference.
Because there’s likely another side to the story.
Posted: September 8th, 2011 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Dan Jacobson | Tags: 11th Legislative District, Anti-Bully Law, Dan Jacobson | 4 Comments »
By Dan Jacobson, also published in the August 25, 2011 edition of The triCityNews
This Publisher is unapologetically opinionated in these pages. Often with a harsh, abrasive and profane style.
How do I get away with it? By happily running commentary trashing this newspaper or me personally. We love doing that. It’s what provides balance. Quite effectively.
Currently, I’m running as an Independent for the state Assembly. And I’ve been bluntly stating my positions in these columns the past couple months.
So it’s time to publish some opposition! And I’ve got the perfect source – the reader comments on the website of powerful Republican blogger Art Gallagher. Art lets me post these columns on his More Monmouth Musings site, and my commentary certainly draws some fire. Almost all the comments are posted anonymously.
So in the interest of balance – as well as a creative way to take a week off from this column – I present these opposing viewpoints about the Jacobson for Assembly campaign:
Dan Jacobson lacks the character and the brains to be elected to public office. It goes without saying – and without having to hold a general election – that most voters around here feel the same way.
–Truth
Dan,
There is no doubt you have some great communication skills. However, being pro choice and favoring same sex marriage is your downfall. I suggest you speak with a strong religious scholar. You might just find the missing link in your life.
—Momwiilto
What a nightmare this guy’s writing is. And he runs a newspaper?
Besides, he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He’s trying to disguise his one issue, that of gay marriage. He can’t win, but he’d love to play spoiler.
–Freespeaker1976
Can this guy write a piece without using an expletive?
Reaching for shock value much? Seems as though that is the only chance he has got to garner attention.
–Acollegerepublican
Really? Who cares? Only you. Of all the issues they need to be worrying about, this ranks very near the bottom. I say to all of you NYers, regardless of orientation, go back to NY.
–Abe (In response to a column in support of same-sex marriage)
Dan Jacobson, using your paper the way you are right now as an official candidate is, in my opinion, very unethical.
–Commonsense
Dan who? … (Yawn)
–Parabellum
I don’t understand why he is doing this. Dan should worry about his newspaper.
–Monmouth County Democratic Chairman Vic Scudiery (obviously concerned about me cutting into the Democratic vote)
Sounds like he wants to be a spoiler to hurt the GOP….just like that “Tea party” candidate did in that upstate NY Congressional District recently.
–TheDigger (obviously concerned about me cutting into the Republican vote)
Dan has an entertaining paper but he will have ZERO impact on this race. Maybe 10 democrats, 10 republicans and 50 nut jobs will vote for him. I hope he has fun with it because at least that will spice it up a little.
–TR (obviously concerned about me cutting into nobody’s vote)
Do the words “duplicitous rear end schmuck” mean anything?
–FreeSpeaker1976
Another entrant in the “attention whore of the Jersey Shore”. Congrats on being the first “male” entrant Dan.
–Brian
I too was less than enchanted with Jacobson’s potty mouth language, but then; I thought about it for a moment.
BRILLIANT MOVE ART, publishing (this column). It shows what an arse Jacobson is. Take it for what it’s worth, Rush Limbaugh does this a lot. He lets the idiots talk and the more they talk, the more they expose their idiocy.
But then, what do you expect from a rabid left wing loon.
–Freespeaker1976
Is Jacobson talking about himself being an ass? Beyond that, I have never seen such a run-on and worthless writing style. God save us if this fool wins an election.
The only thing he seems to be good for is the sale of Tums for people who need them after they read his bilge.
–Freespeaker1976
So Mr. Jacobson, Michelle Bachman is a wacko? Why, because she has different ideas about religion and social issues then you do? There are a large number of people who agree with her on those issues. In many parts of the Country they are a majority.
Let me add this Michelle Bachman has provided foster care for 23 children. If she is a wacko we need more of them. Have you ever done anything nearly that selfless? I know I sure have not and I doubt you have either. No all you can do is sit back and be a smart mouth. I would ask you if you have any shame but I already know the answer.
From now on I propose you be known by a more appropriate name… Mr. Jackass.
–TR
Right TR – Dan Jacobson is an intellectual lightweight who can only resort to calling people names – especially when they are light years ahead of him in ability and accomplishment. Michelle Bachmann is a brilliant tax attorney who understands the dire straits our country is in. She is a strong leader who has undergone more scrutiny in a week than our Muslim president has undergone in six years. His candidacy is a joke – this just confirms it.
–Proud Republican
…and that idiots like this can be candidates for office is further proof that not only is this country going to implode, it deserves to.
–Brian
(The 11th District where I’m running includes: Asbury Park, Long Branch, Red Bank, Ocean Township, Neptune, Neptune City, Interlaken, Deal, Allenhurst, Loch Arbour, West Long Branch, Eatontown, Shrewsbury Borough, Shrewsbury Township, Tinton Falls, Colts Neck, Freehold Township and Freehold Borough.)
Posted: August 25th, 2011 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Dan Jacobson, NJ State Legislature | Tags: 11th Legislative District, Dan Jacobson | 6 Comments »
By Dan Jacobson, also published in the August 18 edition of the triCityNews
When you’re running for office in America, there’s the inevitable question about the seriousness of your campaign:
How much money are you going to raise?
People are now starting to ask that about me. Because I’m running for the state Assembly as an Independent. And I’ve been getting lots of attention lately by bluntly stating my positions in this space. Exactly as I’ve always done as Publisher of the triCityNews.
In fact, serving as an Assemblyman would be an extension of my work as a journalist. It would provide another platform for my advocacy at the state level. But most rewarding would be how I’d hold the office – with complete independence to say and do what I want. I’d owe no one. And I completely reject politics as we know it today.
Yeah, I admit it. I have some big ambitions here. I want to break the mold of politics in this state.
And that starts with my campaign.
Of course, I’d love to do the actual work of an Assemblyman. But I’m certainly not obsessed with getting elected. And that obsession is what I can’t stand about politicians. I can’t even listen to candidates anymore. It’s too infuriating. In fact, politics today is downright cheesy. I think it’s demeaning to those running. It’s actually embarrassing to watch.
So whether it’s glad-handing at political events, handing out the same old campaign literature, mouthing the typical bullshit or getting caught up in the money chase – I’m rejecting it all. Yup, I won’t do it. And I don’t give a shit. If that’s the only way to win, then I don’t win. No problem. I don’t want the office any other way. I don’t want to be a cheesy politician.
Which brings me back to fundraising.
“Dan will wake some people up,” said powerful Republican blogger Art Gallagher on his More Monmouth Musings blog about my candidacy recently. “But unless he raises and spends some serious money, he will not be a factor.”
Art may indeed be right. The major party candidates, backed by their state party organizations, have been known to spend over $1 million in hotly contested legislative districts. Of course, everyone knows what that money represents – and where it comes from. It’s gross. I know firsthand. I was in such a race 20 years ago in my late 20s when I won one term in the state Assembly. Never again. It’s disgusting.
Look, I’ve stated flat-out that I don’t expect to win. No Independent in New Jersey has won an Assembly seat in 50 years. So the odds are overwhelmingly against me. And conventional wisdom says that you’ve got to raise serious money to be a serious candidate.
Then again, I’m not a conventional guy, and I’ve always rejected conventional thought. I make my own judgments. And I would not run if I didn’t at least think I could win. It is possible.
This is a five candidate race featuring two Republicans, two Democrats and me. We are competing for the two Assembly seats in the 11th District. Voters can vote for up to two candidates. I may get only 10 percent of the vote. Or I may win by 10 votes. Maybe I’ll lose by 10 votes. Perhaps I’ll come in first by 1,000 votes.
I really don’t care. That’s the liberating part. I know exactly how I want to run this campaign. And I know exactly how I’d serve if elected. That’s all set in stone. There’s no deviating from it.
That means winning or losing is out of my hands. As it should be – because I won’t change who I am or what I say to affect the outcome. Got no interest in doing so. That’s why this campaign may have a special resonance with voters if they pick up on it.
My beliefs are united by one thing – a knee-jerk reaction against the concentration of power, wherever it may be found. That includes government employee unions who use mandatory dues to elect those sitting across the bargaining table. That includes powerful corporations that get government favors instead of competing in the free market. It also includes big media – my disgust with the Gannett-owned Asbury Park Press is well-documented. And it includes political parties who order elected officials what to do. I recoil against it all.
As for social issues, I’m pro-choice and in favor of same sex marriage. Government should not be involved in such private matters.
By the way, there will be some money spent on this campaign. I’m not disclosing how much. That will eventually be on the campaign finance reports. But it will certainly not be considered “serious money”. Yup, I want to be that cheap. I’ll owe no one.
Keep in mind, however, that there are two things I know quite well: Communications and politics. In the end, I say my unconventional campaign – run purposely on the cheap – will have as much punch as a conventional one spending $100,000.
Still, is that enough for an Independent to win? Probably not. But it’s not impossible.
So why do this at all?
Here’s my motivation: It would be tremendously satisfying to win this campaign by saying exactly what I think. Literally not changing one word. I’ve never seen that done before. What an accomplishment that would be!
That, in turn, would lead to the most professionally rewarding experience possible in government: Holding an elected office without owing anyone. After running a campaign where you told voters the truth.
That’s the fantasy of all decent people who’d like to serve in public office. And that’s the only way I’m willing to do it.
(The 11th District where I’m running includes: Asbury Park, Long Branch, Red Bank, Ocean Township, Neptune, Neptune City, Interlaken, Deal, Allenhurst, Loch Arbour, West Long Branch, Eatontown, Shrewsbury Borough, Shrewsbury Township, Tinton Falls, Colts Neck, Freehold Township and Freehold Borough.)
Editors note: All candidates for any office are welcome to submit material to MMM. You don’t even have to be a candidate for office to submit. As long as I think your stuff will be of interest to my readers, I’ll probably publish it, unless it needs more than 30 seconds worth of editing. If your stuff needs lots of editing, I probably won’t open your second email.
If you quote me and stroke my ego, your chances of publication are very good. Send to Artvg at aol dot com.
Posted: August 18th, 2011 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Dan Jacobson, NJ State Legislature | Tags: 11th Legislative District, Dan Jacobson | 6 Comments »
By Dan Jacobson, also published in the July 14 edition of the triCityNews
So I’m running as an Independent for the state Assembly in the 11th District. Got a letter the other day from NJEA President Barbara Keshishian inviting me to submit my views on public education. Apparently, the teachers union has begun to consider candidate endorsements. Here’s what I sent:
Yes! I do want the endorsement of the NJEA. Of course!
First, let’s dispense with some unpleasantries.
I want school vouchers tried in poor urban school districts. If successful, I’d want vouchers expanded statewide to develop an alternative education system competing with the public sector. I also don’t believe government employee unions should use mandatory dues for political purposes.
And I support the recently-passed pension and health benefits reform bill as a step in the right direction, although its supporters overstate its impact. (Of course, the bill – surprise, surprise – leaves unstated who will pay the taxes that it clearly requires. Wow, what courage. No wonder the pension system has been underfunded for 15 years.)
Since 1999, I’ve published the triCityNews weekly newspaper – with the largest readership in the 11th District – and I’ve followed one rule: We call it like we see it. We respect our readers enough not to pander to them, even if it pisses them off. And that’s exactly what I’m doing with voters. Same with this letter, which I’m publishing verbatim in my paper.
Contrast that with the NJEA’s recent experience. The Democrats told you everything you wanted to hear to get your support, and you demand almost 100 percent adherence to your agenda. Of course, they don’t believe in any of it. All they believe in is getting elected. You saw the results when Democratic leaders stabbed you in the back on the pension bill. Now all sides look like fools.
The Republicans? Governor Christie claims he has no problem with the teachers – only with your union. He’s full of shit. The Republican Party is purposely demonizing public school teachers to gain political advantage. They’re communicating to voters that widespread teacher incompetence is a major problem in the education system.
It’s not. Although widespread incompetence among lawmakers in Trenton is certainly a major problem. Issues like teacher testing, tenure reform and seniority reform are all bullshit. They have nothing to do with containing costs or radically transforming the way education is delivered in our state. They have everything to do with getting Republicans elected by trashing teachers. Watch for a push on those issues before the November election.
For me, it’s all about school vouchers giving parents a choice. School vouchers set up a system where the public and private sectors compete against each other. That means peak performance by everyone. Let the teachers, administrators and union in each public school figure out for themselves how to retain and attract students. They’re talented enough to do so. If not, parents will send their kids elsewhere, and the school will close. It’s what we face in the private sector every day. What am I missing?
The best teacher testing? It’s whether a parent will send their kids to a particular school. That’s the best test. Not a state bureaucracy pushing teachers to make students do better on standardized tests. Especially if test results are linked to teachers getting merit pay. That all seems a bit weird to me.
If school vouchers work, the competition will make every school provide the best education it possibly can. Those that don’t – either public or private – will cease operations. And those teachers displaced will seek jobs at new schools or those expanding. In fact, you’ll likely see entrepreneurial public school teachers go out and open their own private schools. The world is changing, and our system of education must change with it.
The last thing you want is the dead hand of government in the middle of all this competition, regulating the classroom and teachers in the public schools. That defeats the whole purpose. Let the teachers and the NJEA suggest the changes in the law they need to compete in a voucher system. Not impose it on them.
Call me crazy, but I think the NJEA should come out for vouchers in some poor urban school districts to see if it works. Why not take a broadly defensible position for a change? Why not say you want to compete? And if successful, vouchers should be responsibly implemented statewide, like over a decade, so any problems can be flagged. That’s not going to kill teachers in the system today. And who says the public schools can’t compete? This all should have been done 20 years ago.
When parents have a choice – and they then voluntarily choose the public schools – the NJEA will win the public’s support the old-fashioned way: by earning it. It’s what we do in the private sector, and there’s nothing more rewarding.
So why endorse me?
Because I’ll tell you the truth. Unlike the bullshit you’ve been getting from both parties, this candidate believes in the professionalism of our state’s teachers. My positions indicate that. My differences with the NJEA involve financial constraints, and how to build a transformative system of education to better respond to society’s needs.
But without at least trying vouchers, even I’d eventually have to go for the highly flawed alternatives: teacher testing, merit pay, and tenure and seniority “reform” (the last two which risk politicization of the hiring and firing process). At least I think I would. What a dumb scenario that would all be: The dead hand of government flopping around trying to improve the education system to deal with the many challenges – both economic and social – that we face.
So there you go, NJEA! A candidate who truly respects your membership and tells you the truth.
When do the teachers arrive to start picketing my house?
Dan Jacobson
Independent candidate for the State Assembly
11th District
(The 11th District where I’m running includes: Asbury Park, Long Branch, Red Bank, Ocean Township, Neptune, Neptune City, Interlaken, Deal, Allenhurst, Loch Arbour, West Long Branch, Eatontown, Shrewsbury Borough, Shrewsbury Township, Tinton Falls, Colts Neck, Freehold Township and Freehold Borough.)
Posted: July 14th, 2011 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Dan Jacobson, NJEA | Tags: Dan Jacobson, NJEA | 4 Comments »
By Dan Jacobson, Originally published in the July 7 edition of the triCityNews
And people object to the language in this newspaper? Turns out we’re not so out of line.
Check out Democratic Senate President Steve Sweeney ripping into Republican Governor Chris Christie last weekend – in a front page story in the Star-Ledger, the biggest newspaper in the state:
He’s mean-spirited. He’s angry. If you don’t like what he says, I liken it to being spoiled…(it’s) I’m going to get my way, or else. He’s a rotten prick.
Hilarious.
After all, only a few days before the two stood together at the signing of the controversial pension reform bill. They called each other friends and partners. The Governor hailed this bipartisan cooperation as a national model.
So much for that! Days later Christie vetoed the Democratic budget – and used his power to unilaterally reduce budget items, including funds for some pretty vulnerable people. Sweeney said it was political retaliation against those opposing the Governor:
This is all about him being a bully and a punk. I wanted to punch him in the head…To prove a point to me – a guy who has stood side by side with him, and made tough decisions – for him to punish people to prove a political point? He’s just a rotten bastard to do what he did.
Listen, you can punch me in the face and knock me down, do what you want. But don’t be vindictive and punish innocent people. These people didn’t do anything to him. It’s like a bank robber taking hostages. And now he’s starting to shoot people.
I liken it to being spoiled…He’s just a cruel man.
Hey, even we’ve never used the word “prick” in these pages. (Probably because we never thought of it.) But now that the Star-Ledger says it’s OK, well, let’s face it: Governor Christie can be a prick.
Not that he isn’t right most of the time on economic issues. I’d vote for the pension and benefits reform bill. But there’s just something about the guy I never liked. It’s just a visceral reaction. Of course, no way was I going to vote for that prick Jon Corzine in the last election. What a buffoon. So I voted for Independent Chris Daggett, who may or may not be a prick.
Anyway, I’m running for the state Assembly this year as an Independent. I have a strong libertarian streak on economics and social issues. And I have no interest in being a politician or acting like one. Way too cheesy. I’d simply want to do the job of an Assemblyman. Imagine that.
But if elected, there’s one huge perk I’m going to milk for all it’s worth: The entertainment value of being down in Trenton with all these clowns. It would be outrageous. Just fantastic. I couldn’t help but insert myself right into the middle of it. Who could resist such centrifugal forces of absurdity? And to own a newspaper and be able to write about it all the time! I’m sorry, you people have got to elect me. You’ve got to!
I first went to Trenton in 1984 as an aide to then state Senator Frank Pallone. I got elected to the state Assembly as a Democrat at age 28 and served a term in 1990-91. Even had a physical altercation with the Assembly Speaker, who was a member of my own party, after I led a revolt on a controversial education funding bill. So I’ve seen some action real up close and personal down there. Pretty wild stuff.
But I never saw anything like the drama unfolding between Sweeney and Christie. And the set design in the background is just fabulous: The Democratic Party imploding – tearing itself up as Democratic leaders like Sweeney sided with the Governor on pension and benefit reform, while lower ranking Democratic legislators bitterly blasted their own leadership to suck up to their union sponsors. And now suddenly – out of nowhere – Sweeney and Christie are in a steel caged wrestling match.
What a spectacle! Man, give Governor Christie credit for choreographing the whole show. It’s brilliant. After Democratic leaders stuck their necks out for him on pension and benefit reform – giving him even greater national prominence – the Governor turned on them just days later when he blasted their proposed budget. What treachery.
What a prick!
Of course, Christie was completely right in his comments. But he’s still a prick:
The proposed budget from the Democrats is just more of the same unrealistic, pie in the sky, fantasy budgeting they brought to New Jersey for the eight years before we arrived. Instead of continuing to put New Jersey on strong fiscal footing, this proposal reaffirms the Democrats’ commitment to job-killing tax increases and an unrepentant addiction to spending. New Jerseyans are the most over-taxed citizens in America and they want us to reduce spending and make government smaller. This proposal only serves to denigrate all of the hard choices made over the last year that broke from decades of state government spending money that just doesn’t exist.
Got to say, the level of our political discourse has sunk to new lows with the publication of that Sunday front page Star-Ledger article – with the most powerful Democrat in Trenton calling our Republican Governor “a rotten prick.”
If elected, I promise that you won’t see this Publisher use such language in the state capitol. I’d use it in these pages, of course. But not while walking around in my official capacity as a state Assemblyman.
Then again, I’d tell a reporter that something is bullshit. Although I wouldn’t call any other elected officials assholes. Certainly not “rotten pricks”.
You know, I got to think this through now that the Star-Ledger has totally changed the rules. Got to make sure we keep our standards current so people know what’s acceptable behavior.
After all, we’re the triCityNews. We’re here to help.
(The 11th District where I’m running includes: Asbury Park, Long Branch, Red Bank, Ocean Township, Neptune, Neptune City, Interlaken, Deal, Allenhurst, Loch Arbour, West Long Branch, Eatontown, Shrewsbury Borough, Shrewsbury Township, Tinton Falls, Colts Neck, Freehold Township and Freehold Borough.)
Posted: July 11th, 2011 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Dan Jacobson | Tags: Dan Jacobson, triCityNews | Comments Off on Hey, we never called the Governor a prick…
By Dan Jacobson, originally published in the June 30th edition of the triCityNews
Time for Jennifer Beck to face the music on same sex marriage. And the recently-engaged Republican Senator will soon have a lot of explaining to do.
With New York voting for marriage equality, the focus will shift to New Jersey where our state Senate voted down same sex marriage two years ago.
Beck, to her shame, voted against it. And all 16 Republican Senators in office today oppose marriage equality.
Of course, it’s politics. Republicans must appease their right wing on social issues – just as Democrats must do with their left wing on economic issues. That’s what pisses everyone off. The total bullshit of it all. You can’t tell me 100 percent of those Senate Republicans in Trenton personally oppose marriage equality.
And no way does Beck, despite her vote.
Jennifer kept her mouth shut during the floor debate on the issue. And her letter to constituents explaining her vote never stated she personally opposed marriage equality – only that she voted according to the sentiment of her legislative district.
Well, the Senator now has a new district with new constituents. She’s in the newly gerrymandered 11thDistrict, which for the first time includes Red Bank, Long Branch and Asbury Park. I call it the triCity district. (I’m running in the same district as an Independent for state Assembly.) The 11th District also includes Ocean Township, Neptune and Ocean Grove, among other places.
Suddenly, Senator Beck has a sizeable gay and lesbian population among her constituents. Probably the largest in any legislative district in the state. So this ought to be interesting. After all, in Jennifer’s world the moral issue of same sex marriage is decided by what’s best to do politically. Or in the language of politicians: “Representing the will of my constituents.” So what will she do now?
As Beck spends more time in Asbury Park and Ocean Grove, and other places in her new district with a gay population, she’ll feel like a total fool. There is no way this otherwise progressive Republican woman – she’s also pro-choice – is personally opposed to marriage equality. No way. And everyone knows it.
So consider this. If a politician doesn’t have the guts to vote what they believe on a moral issue – remember we’re talking about issues of morality here – how can we ever expect them to do the right thing on anything else?
Obviously, marriage equality isn’t the most important issue facing the state government – it’s all economic issues right now – but I’ve always considered it a big deal. It’s outrageous that there still exists such bigotry against my friends and neighbors here in Asbury Park, and that politicians are afraid to stand up to it. And it says so much about those we elect.
Lots of readers know that Beck and I are long-time close friends. And the triCityNews has backed her since she was unknown and unelected and taking on the Democratic machine up in Red Bank. That’s where she made her name. So when I win my Assembly race in November, the two of us will be spending lots of time together. Driving to Trenton, going to local events, meeting on issues of concern to the 11th District.
And I will hound her every second until she changes her position on the marriage equality issue. Because it’s a complete joke – really a disgrace – to watch her stand there and say she will vote against it again. I’m not buying it for one second. And friends don’t let friends make asses of themselves.
So Beck might as well get it over with and change her stance now. She’s not going to lose this election in November, and the next one is four years away. Her only vulnerability would be in a GOP primary against a right-wing social conservative. And even that she’d win in this moderate district.
Then again, if Beck lost a Republican primary because of supporting marriage equality, so what? It’s the right thing to do. You don’t play games on moral issues. Or else you’ll end up looking like those southern bigots of the 1960s who opposed interracial marriage.
That will be Beck’s legacy if she sticks with this position. Bet most of those clowns opposing interracial marriage didn’t care either way – hey, it was just politics. Like Beck is doing today. If she doesn’t switch her position soon in her new district, this issue will haunt her down the road. As it should. Better to do it sooner than later, when it would look like she was just trying to avoid the issue until it comes up again for a vote.
A special mention is due here to Republican Assemblywoman Mary Pat Angelini, who is Beck’s running mate and the only Republican in Trenton I know who supports marriage equality. I’ve long saluted Mary Pat in these pages for taking that stand. What a great reflection of great character on her part.
Interestingly, in the contest for the two Assembly seats in the 11thDistrict, four of the five candidates – Mary Pat, myself and Democrats Marilyn Schlossbach and Vin Gopal – all support same sex marriage. So does Beck’s Democratic opponent Raymond Santiago.
Jennifer’s conduct on this issue has been disgusting long enough. It’s time to end it. She’d be the first Republican in the current state Senate to change her stand, and do what’s right. Jennifer would join Mary Pat Angelini as a leader in the Republican Party on this issue.
Of course, we’d be happy to make these pages available for Beck’s announcement supporting marriage equality. There’s no better venue for Jennifer to set everything right.
After all, we’re the triCityNews. We’re here to help.
(The new 11thDistrict – where everyone mentioned in this article is running – includes Asbury Park, Long Branch, Red Bank, Ocean Township, Neptune, Neptune City, Interlaken, Deal, Allenhurst, Loch Arbour, West Long Branch, Eatontown, Shrewsbury Borough, Shrewsbury Township, Tinton Falls, Colts Neck, Freehold Township and Freehold Borough.)
Editors note: As Dan Jacobson appears to be submitting his triCityNews publisher’s column to MMM on a weekly basis, this is a good time to remind readers and writers that all are welcome to submit material to MMM. It has always been that way but is worth repeating. Send your stuff to artvg @ aol .com
Posted: June 30th, 2011 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Dan Jacobson, Jennifer Beck, Same Sex Marriage | Tags: Dan Jacobson, Jennifer Beck, Same Sex Marriage | 17 Comments »
By Dan Jacobson
So I’m running as an Independent for the state Assembly. And I can’t wait to face the Asbury Park Press editorial board for the endorsement interview.
That ought to be interesting. I’ve been blasting them as hypocrites of the first order for over a decade. I also call them assholes whenever necessary. They deserve it.
Yet on the most important issue facing our state government – the $120 billion shortfall needed to pay pension and retiree health benefits – suddenly the Asbury Park Press has eerily followed the triCity line.
In other words, I look forward to their endorsement.
From my column last week:
Any day now, you’ll see our Republican Governor and Democratic legislative leaders announce a deal to “reform” our state pension system.
Don’t believe it. This is a problem requiring 20 years of fiscal discipline. These people can’t see beyond the next election in 20 weeks….
So when you see our Republican Governor and Democratic legislative leaders announce some deal to address this problem, remember this: It’s all about the election in five months when the Senate and Assembly are up for grabs. It’s not a permanent deal. It can always be reversed or changed later…
Sure, they’ll make some progress with their deal – just enough to con you to think something is getting done. But not on a scale that really solves this problem. There’s not enough political upside and way too much political downside.
Indeed, the next day such a deal was announced. Three days later, the Press ran a front page article on the agreement entitled “Experts: Reforms not Enough”.
A better headline would have been “Jacobson was right”. Here’s the Press:
Government workers are white-hot angry over a proposal to make them pay more for their pensions and health care.
But with the state now facing a $120 billion long-term cost for the unfunded portion of pensions and retiree health benefits, experts say that the measure, expected to be voted in the full state Senate on Monday, does not go far enough.
“It’s a healthy modest bipartisan step, but it doesn’t deal with a lot of the major problems,” said Michael Riccards of the Hall Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that specializes in state issues. “I see a lot of it as postponement.”
Jeremy Gold, a New York-based actuary consultant who reviewed the pension and benefit reform proposal for New Jersey Press Media, agreed. “Any step in the right direction, I don’t want to be too harsh about,” Gold said. “But they are a long way from solving their problems.”
…(E)xperts see flaws in the package. Riccards, who has written extensively about the pension and benefit problems, said the state has yet to deal with the high cost of health care, such as the price of drugs, especially common drugs such as antibiotics.
He also noted that the state must still pay for retirees’ medical care out of the annual budget. In tough economic times, that could be a problem, Riccards said.
Gold said he takes issue with how the funding levels of the pension funds are calculated and said government rules over public pensions are too lax.
Tell you what. I was certain the Press would fall for the hype and cover the bipartisan “reform” as if it solves this catastrophic $120 billion crisis. They’re usually pretty clueless. To my shock, they got it right.
As did I.
Hell, I didn’t even have to see the so-called reforms beforehand. I knew what was coming.
(Sure, I’d vote for this bipartisan deal – it’s better than doing nothing. But I wouldn’t brag about how great it is, as you’ll now see the Governor and some Democratic leaders do as they compete for votes this November. The experts interviewed by the Press had it right: This is only a modest bipartisan start – the tough stuff still remains. Why am I not shocked?)
OK, so now what?
The elected officials are utterly incapable of dealing with something of this magnitude: The proposed state budget for this year is only $29 billion compared to the $120 billion gap we face on pensions and retiree health care.
My framework for a solution? Ripping the problem away from the politicians. I see no other way out.
I’d advocate a constitutional amendment – approved by the voters – establishing an independent Board of Trustees to oversee the pension and retiree health benefits system. They’d calculate the true amount necessary to make the system solvent – and take it out of the Treasury every year.
No cheating on figures. No cheating on the funding. Remember that the pension system has been underfunded for over 15 years. The politicians spent that money elsewhere. Just like what happened with Social Security on the federal level for the past 20 years. But in the end, we’re all responsible for this debacle. We elected these people.
The problem of pension and retiree health benefits in New Jersey can’t be solved without spreading the pain among everyone in our state. And the sooner we get to it the better. Otherwise, this debt will destroy us – and you’ll see the streets of Trenton looking like Athens, complete with the tear gas and rioting. What a nice image of New Jersey as a place to live and locate your business.
The constitutional amendment I envision would empower the independent Board of Trustees to draw up a rescue plan with the directive to seek equity in the sacrifice of the populace. That means benefit cuts to workers already retired and who will retire. And new revenue from taxes. The Amendment would specifically require both. You can’t do it any other way. Any politician telling you otherwise is lying. If you want to keep buying the bullshit, go ahead. It’s worked great so far.
Remember this: The more you spread around the sacrifice, the less of a burden it is on everyone individually. But you can never pull that off in the political system. That’s why I’d have the Pension Trustees do it for us. Of course, their rescue plan would require voter approval. You got to have that to raise taxes and cut benefits in this fashion.
If voters reject their rescue plan, the Trustees would still take what’s needed each year from the state Treasury to fund the system. No more putting off Judgment Day. And then the three ring circus – the Governor, the Senate and the Assembly – can figure out how to pay for it. That ought to be one hell of a show.
In my proposal, I’d have the Board of Trustees appointed to staggered and lengthy terms by the Governor with the approval of the state Senate. They’d be barred from political activity, and would have no past connections to unions for a decade if not more.
The concept is to get a group of our state’s best talent to tell us the truth, and present us a plan made in good faith to deal with this issue. In the end, we make the call. If the Trustees get too political, or go too far off the rails, the voters would reject it. Anyone got a better idea?
An independent Board of Trustees sounds reasonable to me. Which means it will never happen. But in the unlikely event I get elected to the Assembly – only one Independent has done so in 50 years – at least someone will stand up and speak the truth about this explosive problem.
Just like I did in this space last week – as the Asbury Park Press most unexpectedly confirmed a few days later.
Man, this campaign is already getting awfully weird, and it’s only been three weeks.
(The 11th District where I’m running includes: Asbury Park, Long Branch, Red Bank, Ocean Township, Neptune, Neptune City, Interlaken, Deal, Allenhurst, Loch Arbour, West Long Branch, Eatontown, Shrewsbury Borough, Shrewsbury Township, Tinton Falls, Colts Neck, Freehold Township and Freehold Borough.)
Posted: June 23rd, 2011 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Dan Jacobson, NJ State Legislature | Tags: 11th Legislative District, Dan Jacobson | 4 Comments »
Editors note: The following column by Dan Jacobson was originally published in the June 16, 2011 edition of the triCityNews. It was written before the recent agreement of pension and health care reform struck by Governor Christie, Senate President Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Oliver.
By Dan Jacobson
Any day now, you’ll see our Republican Governor and Democratic legislative leaders announce a deal to “reform” our state pension system.
Don’t believe it. This is a problem requiring 20 years of fiscal discipline. These people can’t see beyond the next election in 20 weeks.
Our state government is $121 billion short of what’s needed to pay projected pension and retiree health benefits. How bad is it? This year’s proposed state budget is only $29.4 billion.
In other words, we’re bankrupt.
Remember the rioting in Greece last year? You bet there could be tear gas over Trenton if this isn’t fixed. And I’m not optimistic.
Last week, I announced I’m running for the state Assembly as an Independent. So let me piss off everyone by outlining what needs to be done. And it’s ugly. No way around it.
First, this problem must be ripped away from the politicians. I’d propose a state constitutional amendment – requiring voter approval – to establish an independent Board of Trustees to administer the pension and retirement health benefits system.
Each year, these independent Trustees would recalculate the total projected shortfall the state faces. No fudging the numbers by politicians. And the Board of Trustees would develop and oversee a long-term plan to restore the system – and thus the state’s finances – to solvency.
In addition, the Board would determine the annual contribution to the system – and it would have to be paid by the state. The elected officials have underfunded it for 15 years. With a constitutional amendment, that would end. No more cheating. We’d pay what’s needed to fix the problem.
And the Board of Trustees would be empowered to do what the politicians can’t: Set up a plan of benefit cuts and tax increases to fix the system by spreading the pain as widely as possible. And the wider it’s spread, the less it hurts everyone individually. Everyone has got to take a hit. We’re all in this mess together.
By the way, those benefit cuts would affect current and future retires already in the system. There’s no other way to do it. Elected officials only talk about changing the benefits for new employees. That’s not enough. So I envision everyone equally screaming – taxpayers, retirees, future retirees – when the Trustees propose a plan to fix this mess. Ironically, that way you know it’s fair.
But this is not a dictatorship. The rescue plan from the Board of Trustees would be submitted for voter approval.
If voters reject it, the Pension Trustees would simply take what’s needed every year from the state Treasury to ensure the system’s solvency. In that scenario, the three-ring circus in the State House – the Governor, the Assembly and the Senate – would figure out how to pay that annual bill. Of course, that will be a mess. But the bill would be paid. No more underfunding the system. No more postponing Judgment Day. I’d rather face it on our terms.
There you have it. That’s the basic outlines of my proposal. Here’s some more details:
The Board of Pension Trustees would be non-political like Judges. They’d be appointed by the Governor with the consent of the state Senate. None would have business or financial connection to unions for at least a decade, if not more. They’d have long and staggered terms as Trustees to minimize political interference.
And in putting together a rescue plan, their directive in the constitutional amendment would be quite specific: To implement a mix of both benefit cuts and tax increases – and it would specifically require both – to spread the burden as equitably as possible across all the citizens of this state.
Sure, that would require subjective judgments. There’s no mathematical formula to achieve this. But at least a rescue plan by the Trustees would be made in good faith by non-political appointees – not politicians seeking reelection. And voters would have the final say.
In other words, we’d face this problem like adults. We’d empower an independent group of people to tell us the truth. And propose a solution for us to consider. We’d then make the final call in a statewide vote.
Sure sounds better than tear gas canisters fired at protestors when a bankrupt state can’t pay its bills – and people become more outraged than anything we’ve ever seen in New Jersey.
But maybe all is not lost. Take the sentiment of retired state worker Vincent Lobascio, 85. He’s ready to sacrifice some of his benefits. Let’s hope most other citizens share his views – or we’re done.
“I’m willing to make my contribution, and I’m a retired guy,” the World War II combat veteran told the Asbury Park Press in a story about the pension crisis. “But don’t kill me.”
I’m with Mr. Lobascio. This 49 year-old taxpayer would pay more to solve this mess – just don’t kill me either. We’re all adults. We all know something must be done. Just spread that burden around as widely as possible. In the end, the solution is likely reasonable.
But politicians can’t do that because they’re competing for the support of blocs of voters – whether liberal union members or anti-tax conservatives. It’s all about getting elected. In fact, both those voter blocs I just mentioned will be outraged at this column.
Oh well. So I’ll get to remain a private citizen. Wow, what a tragedy.
So when you see our Republican Governor and Democratic legislative leaders announce some deal to address this problem, remember this: It’s all about the election in five months when the Senate and Assembly are up for grabs. It’s not a permanent deal. It can always be reversed or changed later. And you bet that will happen when the economy starts to do better and no one is paying attention.
Sure, they’ll make some progress with their deal – just enough to con you to think something is getting done. But not on a scale that really solves this problem. There’s not enough political upside and way too much political downside. The state has never faced a challenge this big. Plus, I don’t believe any figures or estimates these clowns throw around. They’re all biased toward getting reelected.
But a constitutional amendment empowering an independent Board of Trustees goes a long way toward eliminating political mischief.
And in my proposal, we’d even get to vote on any rescue plans from the Trustees. If they want to modify a rescue plan later, we’d all vote on that too. If any plan is rejected, the state would still fully fund the retirement system every year and stop the cheating. Imagine how different everything would be if that was done for the past 15 years.
Hey, such a constitutional amendment sounds reasonable to me. That means it doesn’t have a chance in Trenton.
So in the most unlikely event I get elected to the Assembly – only one Independent has done so in 50 years – at least there’d be one person down there speaking the truth about the most dangerous problem this state has ever faced.
(The 11th District where I’m running includes: Asbury Park, Long Branch, Red Bank, Ocean Township, Neptune, Neptune City, Interlaken, Deal, Allenhurst, Loch Arbour, West Long Branch, Eatontown, Shrewsbury Borough, Shrewsbury Township, Tinton Falls, Colts Neck, Freehold Township and Freehold Borough.)
Posted: June 17th, 2011 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Dan Jacobson, NJ Media, NJ State Legislature, Pensions, Public Employee Unions | Tags: 11th Legislative District, Dan Jacobson, Pension and Benefit Reform | 3 Comments »
By Art Gallagher
Sources within the Monmouth County Democratic Organization have told MMM that former Democratic Assemblyman and tri-City News publisher Dan Jacobson is running for Assembly in the 11th legislative district as a third party candidate.
Jacobson declined to comment. What a kitten. KITTEN, KITTEN, KITTEN!
Jacobson, who served in the Assembly as a Democrat in 1990 and 1991, switched his party affiliation to Republican last March in order to challenge 11th district Senator Sean Kean in the Republican primary. When Kean was moved into the 30th district with the new legislative map, Jacobson declined to run in the Republican primary for either Senate or Assembly. At the time, Jacobson told MMM “it doesn’t feel right, I like the incumbents. It wouldn’t be like challenging Sean Kean.”
If he runs, Jacobson would be challenging Republican incumbents Mary Pat Angelini and Caroline Casagrande and Democratic challengers Vin Gopal and Marilyn Schlossbach.
As an anti-government worker union fiscal hawk, Jacobson could draw votes from the Republicans. As a strong supporter of gay marriage…the issue that prompted him to consider a challenge to Kean…he could draw votes from the Democrats.
Which side do you think a Jacobson candidacy would help and hurt? Could he possibly win? Please tell us in the comments.
Posted: May 25th, 2011 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Dan Jacobson, NJ State Legislature | Tags: 11th Legislative District, Dan Jacobson | 4 Comments »
By Art Gallagher
Republican publisher and former Democratic Assemblyman Dan Jacobson says he is mulling running for Assembly in the 11th legislative district GOP primary.
The potty mouth pundit says he supports incumbent Mary Pat Angelini, in large measure due to her pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage positions and that he is considering a challenge to Caroline Casagrande. It’s not that Dan has a problem with Casagrande, like he does with Sean Kean. It’s that he thinks he can cause a transformational change in Trenton if he heads to the Assembly beholden to no one. Free of party ties, donor expectations or special interest loyalty, Dan thinks he can go to Trenton and make government more responsive to the people and less responsive to the special interests. Dan’s goal is laudable. His proposed method is fool hardy, unless he can recruit many many other candidates of a similar mind set and get all of their petitions signed between now and Monday at 4PM. Not going to happen.
But Dan knows that already. He’s lived it already the last time he was in the Assembly 20 years ago. The fun he had driving the leadership crazy is probably more on his mind now than the frustration he experienced. That memory of the fun could be what is driving his consideration of a bid.
What Dan apparently doesn’t realize is that if he files to run for Assembly in the 11th district GOP primary he doesn’t get to choose who he is challenging. He says he is considering a challenge to Casagrande and not Angelini, but the balloting doesn’t work that way.
Assuming Mary Pat, Caroline and Dan are the only candidates in the primary, the election would be a 3 way race for 2 nominations. Dan can say he’s only challenging Caroline all he wants. The truth is that it would be a 3 way race for 2 nominations and Dan could end up knocking off Mary Pat instead of Caroline.
From my point of view Jacobson is a bigger threat in a 3 way to Angelini than he is to Casagrande. Take it from me, the powerful Republican blogger as Dan calls me, if Jacobson runs he is more of a threat to Angelini than he is to Casagrande.
By both perception and reality, Angelini is more liberal than Casagrande. While the very popular Angelini will likely be the top vote getter in the general election, she has some problems with the conservative Republican base. Hardcore conservative voters can be fickle. Many will vote for Casagrande and no one else. Many will vote for Casagrande and Jacobson, just to send a message to Angelini. They won’t mind if Jacobson beats Angelini, figuring they can knock Jacobson off in two years with a real conservative.
Angelini and Casagrande will be bracketed together on the ballot. Assuming Dan is the only primary challenger, his name would be appear in the column immediately to the right of Angelini and Casagrande on the ballot. If the party organization positions Mary Pat and Caroline alphabetically, which would make sense since they have the same seniority, Angelini’s name would appear above Casagrande’s. Jacobson’s name would appear on the ballot right next to Angelini, making it appear on the ballot that Dan is running against Angelini. Even though the instructions will say “Vote for Two,” many uninformed voters will think they have to choose between Angelini and Jacobson before voting for Casagrande who will appear to be unchallenged. Some will chose Jacobson and then vote for Casagrande.
Just some food for thought for Dan to include in his mulling this weekend.
Kitten, kitten, kitten.
Posted: April 9th, 2011 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Dan Jacobson, Legislature, NJ State Legislature | Tags: 11th Legislative District, Caroline Casagrande, Dan Jacobson, Mary Pat Angelini | 2 Comments »
