Political Contributions Take On Yet Another Murky Role

Federal election law allows retired elected officials to donate campaign funds that remain in their election accounts to charities, political parties, and candidates. The law prohibits such officials from using the funds for personal expenses. Despite this prohibition, the use of campaign funds by retired elected officials is a cause for concern. Former United States Senator Bob Torricelli (D-NJ) is a case in point.

After retiring from the Senate under an ethical cloud in 2002, Senator Torricelli had accumulated $2.9 million of unused campaign funds. Since 2002, he has spent approximately $900,000 of that sum and retains about $2,000,000. While a good chunk of the $900,000 has been donated to charities, Mr. Torricelli spent at least $65,000 in donations to politicians and affiliated organizations that directly or indirectly had business dealings with the former Senator or his clients. His donations range from contributions to Harry Reid, United States Senator from Nevada, to local politicians in Trenton. The common thread is that each of the recipients had a direct or indirect link to a business interest of Mr. Torricelli from which the Senator profited shortly before or after the donation.

When someone donates to a candidate, he expects that candidate to spend the money on his own campaign and to promote his candidacy. When candidates retire with large sums in their campaign accounts, why should those donations be able to be used by the candidate to fuel his business interests or reward his political allies? If a donor wanted to aid the former official’s business interests or political allies, he could easily do so by writing a check directly to those business interests or political allies. It is clear that the intent of a political donor is not to fund such interests but rather to assist the candidate in his campaign.

A retired elected official should have only two choices regarding unused campaign funds: return them to the donor or contribute them to the federal or state programs that currently provide matching funds through income tax check-offs to candidates who accept certain campaign fundraising restrictions. In this way, either the donor receives his money back or his money is donated to benefit the political system as a whole. These are avenues that are closest to the original intent of the donor and would best abide by the wishes of most donors. Although it is difficult to locate donors to return their contributions and the matching funds programs have weaknesses, the current system of allowing retired officials to donate funds to advance their personal and business interests is ripe for abuse and flies in the face of the intent of the donor. It is time to reform the system.

Michael M. Shapiro, founder of ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence, New Jersey. He currently serves as the Chairman of the New Providence Democratic Party and as Editor of The Alternative Press Contact Mike at mike@shaptalk.com

Transportation Spending

By: Representative Scott Garrett

For the survivors of the tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota and for the families and friends of those who perished when that bridge plunged 60 feet down into the Mississippi River, that day will not soon be forgotten. But, there are lessons to be learned and remembered for us all, particularly for Congress, if we are to avoid future tragedies like this one.

For one, we must ask to what extent did the epidemic spread of pork barrel spending over the years squeeze out the federal funding that has been needed for truly necessary national infrastructure projects.

Not only are we not addressing this question, learning from past mistakes, but the emerging trend appears to be to piggyback on this tragedy as justification for increasing federal spending and even increasing federal gas taxes. Far too many Members of Congress have seized on this human tragedy to call for more money out of taxpayer pockets instead of exercising their own restraint in packing federal funding bills with personal pork barrel.

In the wake of the bridge collapse, the U.S. Department of Transportation made $5 million in federal funding immediately available to the State of Minnesota. The State has as much as $2 million available in its reserve highway fund, as well. In addition, Congress passed legislation to waive caps on emergency relief funds that could be appropriated to rebuild the bridge, allowing for as much as $5 million in federal funds to be spent on this bridge alone.

I supported that bill. Had I been given the opportunity by the Democrat leadership that pushed it through without opportunity for amendment or much debate, I would have preferred changes to that bill. For instance, I would have preferred that Congress not waive the state and local funding share. But prompt action to at least provide flexibility in meeting this tragedy was the responsible response from Congress.

That said, on the very day that Congress passed this emergency measure to rebuild the Minneapolis bridge, it also passed a bill making “technical corrections” to the massive $287 billion transportation authorization bill passed in 2005. The Chairman of the Transportation Committee, who also authored the emergency bridge legislation, announced in a press release that this “technical corrections” bill made more than $11 million in funding available for projects in his Minnesota district. This included nearly $2.3 million for upgrades to Elizabeth Avenue in Coleraine, Minnesota, a town of about 1,100 people between Duluth and Fargo.

Responsible governance would dictate that Congress give the State of Minnesota the ability to shift funds out of Congressional pet projects of lower priority and into those projects of extraordinary need and great consequence to hundreds of thousands of people. Responsible governance would dictate that we prioritize our use of taxpayer dollars rather than treat your bank accounts as one big, limitless Congressional ATM.

Millions upon millions of dollars are authorized and appropriated each year that catapult photo opportunities for Congressmen and Senators ahead of the priority lists that states set each year based on the needs of their state residents. We hear now that more than 73,000 bridges in the U.S. are rated as “structurally deficient” by the U.S. Department of Transportation. And, the Chairman of the House Transportation Committee recommends as a remedy a new gas tax for a new highway trust fund for bridge repair. But, Congress has been raiding existing trust funds for years for pet projects. And, Americans are paying too much at the pump already.

The real remedy lies in the answer to this question: How many millions of dollars were spent on bike paths and parking garages that could have been spent on bridge inspection and restoration? It may not make for a good photo op, but safety and routine infrastructure protection must return to the top of our funding priorities list.

When I first came to Congress, I drafted a bill know as the STATE (Surface Transportation and Taxation Equity) Act. My bill builds a whole new paradigm for funding important infrastructure projects by restoring states’ authority to set priorities for spending transportation. Authority would be wrested from Washington politicians who don’t drive our roads, don’t know our bridges, and are far removed from our state-specific needs.

Under the STATE Act, funding raised by New Jersey gas taxes would stay in New Jersey to improve driving conditions for New Jerseyans. The top-down approach that we’ve been using – New Jersey taxpayers sending their money to Washington where a portion was eaten up in bureaucracy and an even larger portion was transferred to other states before returning 92% back to the Garden State – hasn’t worked. And, it’s time for a fresh approach.

The Minnesota tragedy demonstrates that there are consequences that go beyond just wasting taxpayer money – misappropriation can cost lives. Congress needs to set priorities in its spending. Money should go first to necessities, like structurally unsafe infrastructure. And, states that know the needs of their residents should be given greater authority in determining how these priorities are set.

U.S. Rep. Scott Garrett is a three- term Republican from the fifth district of New Jersey.

WAGG-NJ

Half of the population in New Jersey and 57% of the total registered voters in the State are women. Why, then, do women comprise only 23 seats in our 120-seat Legislature and do not hold a single seat in our 13-member Congressional delegation? That puts New Jersey near the bottom of the list nationwide when it comes to the number of women holding elected office in a State Legislature. For a State that is more progressive in many ways than others, New Jersey lags far behind on this score. Fortunately, there is one group trying to change that: Women Advocating for Good Government, or WAGG.

Two years ago, WAGG was formed to help increase the representation of women in elected office in New Jersey. According to WAGG’s website, Women Advocating for Good Government is a bi-partisan organization whose mission, “is to elect progressive women to the NJ legislature and other levels of government, to educate women in the political process, to empower women to take political party leadership positions, and to raise funds to support these goals.” The current chair of the organization is Myra Terry, CEO of The Women’s Fund for New Jersey and former President of NOW-NJ. She is joined on the Board by former Assemblywoman Rose Marie Heck and lobbyist and former Chief of Staff for Bob Menendez, Kay LiCausi, among others.

It remains to be seen whether WAGG is successful in its mission. Other groups in New Jersey have attempted to achieve similar goals and have met with limited success. However, WAGG has a strong bi-partisan base from which to work and experienced leadership from both sides of the political aisle that may help it to achieve its goals.

While WAGG’s website is currently in development, you can learn more about the organization at www.waggnj.org

Michael M. Shapiro, founder of ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence, New Jersey. He currently serves as the Chairman of the New Providence Democratic Party and as Editor of The Alternative Press Contact Mike at mike@shaptalk.com

Bush Rules will Undercut SCHIP

By Senator Joe Vitale
New Jersey is one of many states around the nation that recognizes what a hardship health care costs can be on low or middle-income families. In New Jersey, we’ve sought to increase support for families struggling to meet soaring healthcare costs. The SCHIP partnership of Federal and State resources has worked to increase access to care and the well-being of children.

President Bush’s newest rules, through an administrative short cut jeopardizes efforts to protect the health and safety of millions of kids around the nation. Once again, his Administration has shown that it is out of touch with the needs of America’s families, pushing a right-wing agenda which does little to help children in need.

These new rules continue the President’s failed track record on needed health care resources. He has threatened to veto pending Congressional legislation which would actually expand resources to promote greater coverage for the uninsured.

While I’m confident that Congress has the votes to override the wrong-headed plans of the President when it comes to SCHIP, the Administration needs to get its priorities in order when it comes to vital health care safety net programs. Imposing impossible standards to qualify for S-CHIP expansion only shows that the President is hoping to bury this needed program under mountains of bureaucratic red tape. New Jersey, and the nation, deserves better.

Joe Vitale is a State Senator representing New Jersey's 19th Legislative District. The Senator is the Deputy Majority Leader and Chairman of the Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee

Bleeding Disorders in Women Need Review by Senator Joe Vitale

Diagnosing and treating blood disorders is a necessary and worthwhile investment for New Jersey. Bleeding Disorders in women are among the most common and neglected type in the State of New Jersey. The neglect of such disorders only leads to substantial medical, financial, and psycho-social problems for the effected women and the Public Health Sector of New Jersey.

The New Jersey Governor’s Task Force on Women with Bleeding Disorders, established by former Governor McGreevey by Executive Order #51 in 2004, has investigated female bleeding disorders in hopes of solving the dilemma. The force has met every four to six weeks since November 16, 2004. The findings of the Task Force are and their recommendations are basic, yet have a far reaching potential.

As for the recommended findings of the Task Force, if we are going to decrease bleeding disorders and begin effective diagnose of this widely untreated problem we must implement new medical guidelines. The first of which must be medical and educational guidelines providing reasonable and acceptable criteria to clinically define and determine an irregular menses. Additionally there is a need to develop laboratory testing guidelines for performing hemostasis testing. Launching a Public Awareness campaign target toward women to educate the public about normal and abnormal menses and other bleeding disorders caused by excessive menstrual cycles is also essential.

Additionally, to ensure that the recommendations of the Task Force are implemented it is suggested the Governor’s Task Force on Women with Bleeding Disorders be sustained for an additional period of 18 months. The Task Force has also requested permission to establish the following sub-committees to address these specific recommendations, a Medical/Scientific Sub-Committee, an Education Sub-Committee, and a Public Awareness Committee. Each of theses sub-committees would be in charge of implementing and establishing set goals and standards as per the three Task Force recommendations.

Ultimately, the goals of Health Care officials must be to ensure appropriate testing and medical attention to women with Bleeding Disorders. Since many women go undiagnosed and misdiagnosed throughout the State, it is within our best interest to continue the task force and to implement the aforementioned recommendations. Medical professionals and women alike need information not only on the disorders themselves but also of the highly dangerous consequences of the disorders going untreated. If we can increase both public and medical attention the dilemma many women face it is possible to prevent, or successfully treat many of the painful and devastating consequences related to Female Blood Disorders.

Where are the “independent” Politicians?

Approximately one-third of the electorate is composed of people who do not ascribe to either the Democratic or Republican Party, while the other two-thirds are almost evenly split between the Democratic and Republican parties. The Independents are generally people who believe the Parties are too partisan, too close-minded, and are beholden to special interests. They have a point. In fact, if Democrats and Republicans were polled, a sizeable number would likely agree with the Independents but feel they have no other alternative.

Politicians of both persuasions continue to adhere to the lines drafted by the Party big-wigs and consultants. Once they commit to the Party position, they do not look back and do not question it. Only when it changes or electoral support for the position softens to an intolerable degree do they change their stance. Remarkably, the American people return these politicians to office approximately 90% of the time. How can our citizens then bemoan the conduct of officeholders when they themselves continue to re-elect them? The answer lies in the fact that there really is no viable alternative for citizens at this point in time. Given the two choices of committed partisans, they can either vote for one of them or stay home. Increasingly, they choose to stay home and who could blame them given the choice, or lack thereof, they currently have.

There are significant policy differences between a Democratic and Republican candidate, and your vote really does matter. However, your vote does not matter as much as it could if there were another viable option besides the Democratic and Republican Parties.

A credible third party would provide a choice for people, would cause politicians of all persuasions to be more open-minded and thoughtful out of electoral necessity, would cause an enlightenment among some partisans towards a more transparent and ethical government, and would force the Democratic and Republican Parties to rethink their strategies. The days of divide and conquer would likely be over since the divided could readily unite behind a third-party candidate and a campaign of fear and smear could backfire if two other options were available for voters. Neither the Democratic nor Republican parties could take their own voters for granted and both would have to work incredibly hard to peel Independents away from the third-party candidates, causing both parties to tone down their partisan rhetoric, appeal to the middle, and be forced to develop more thoughtful ideas and positions.

Of course, a credible third-party brings with it its own problems. A third-party would weaken the traditional Party system which is currently the general vehicle for voter turnout, citizen mobilization, and political information. However, grassroots organizations and blogs are good replacement vehicles and will only grow stronger in the years ahead. Third party candidates elected to office could wreak havoc by holding up legislation, nominations, and fiscal appropriations. But then again, Democrats and Republicans do this all the time, so such a fear is not dependent on third-party existence.

The truth is that the birth of a credible third party in the 21^st Century might not be a bad thing. In fact, it may be just what our nation needs at this time in our history. Only by having open-minded officials who are freed of purely partisan agendas will a healthy and thoughtful political dialog ensue and our nation’s most pressing needs be met. A third party may help accomplish such feats.

Michael M. Shapiro, founder of ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence, New Jersey. He currently serves as the Chairman of the New Providence Democratic Party and as Editor of The Alternative Press, Contact Mike at mike@shaptalk.com

Newark’s Tipping Point?

By: Murray Sabrin

The killing of three college students last week and the grave wounding of another young lady were horrific “hate crimes.” All criminals are “hateful” because they do not respect the lives of others and/or their property. If all human beings embraced the values of “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not murder,” crime would disappear.

Until that glorious day arrives in Newark and other crime infested urban centers around the nation, I recommend that Mayor Booker initiate “Operation Take Back Our Streets.” The people of Newark deserve no less than a safe city where all children can grow up to realize their potential, where all workers are safe coming and going to work, and visitors are safe walking any street in the city. OTBOS has several components.

• Declare a crime emergency and flood the city’s high crime areas with local, county and state police. If necessary, request Governor Corzine call up a limited contingent of the National Guard to support local law enforcement.
• Install high intensity lights in high crime areas and key intersections.
• Organize massive citizen patrols throughout the city.
• Create education programs about the sanctity of life, respect for women and private property.
• Churches should mobilize their congregants to create programs to improve the skills of youngsters so they will become part the economic and social fabric of our society. In other words, Volunteers in Education could be launched at no cost to taxpayers.
• Create intensive rehabilitation programs in the community for juvenile offenders as well as first time convicted adult criminals so they can become productive members of society. Let them know in no uncertain terms that they will not get a second chance.
• If any released convict should commit a crime, the repeat offender will not be sent to prison where he learns how to become a better criminal and is a dehumanizing institution. Repeat offenders will lose their citizenship, even if they are native born Americans, and deported. Isn’t it better to rid our society of potential killers than risk the possibility they make kill any more youngsters or adults In short, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
• Decriminalize drug use. Drug use is enough punishment.
• Eliminate the drug gangs in Newark and other New Jersey cities by calling on Governor Corzine and President Bush to end drug prohibition. How many more young people have to die because of a failed social policy? You know it Mayor and so does the Governor, drug probation increases crime because of turf wars.
• Restore the Second Amendment in Newark, so law-abiding citizens can protect themselves and their families on the streets.

Some (many) people may find several of the above recommendations draconian, unrealistic, dumb or ridiculous. That’s to be expected. However, a very smart fellow who taught at Princeton, Albert Einstein, once said, 'Insanity is when you do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result'.......

The people of Newark and New Jersey are looking to Cory Booker for leadership. The people of Newark deserve to live in a city where everyone can walk the streets without fear of being assaulted or killed. Mr. Mayor the ball is in your court.

Murray Sabrin, Ph.D., is a finance professor in the Anisfield School of Business, Ramapo College of New Jersey, a columnist for www.usadaily.com and a blogger for www.njvoices.com.

Minnesota Bridge Collapse: Financial Starvation Rears Its Ugly Head

The recent collapse of an interstate bridge in Minnesota that sent a number of people to their deaths is a chilling reminder of the financial starvation of our nation’s needs here at home, needs that were tragically and poignantly showcased during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Meanwhile, we squander hundreds of millions of dollars on domestic bureaucratic programs, such as No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, that fail to adequately meet the needs of our citizens. We also export billions overseas to fight in a war that was initiated because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction that never existed and to fight terrorism that has since exponentially increased. In the meanwhile, political posturing rules the day at the White House and in Congress. Where are our priorities? Who is minding the store?

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the American people saw, virtually for the first time, the antiquated state of our nation’s infrastructure and how the systematic underfunding of our nation’s most pressing needs resulted in death and devastation. The Minnesota bridge collapse, while much smaller in both size and scope, hammers home the same message: because of priorities that are out of whack for a sizeable majority of Americans, our government is not doing what it could to secure our nation, its citizens, and its future. The bridge in question had been inspected during the past few years and declared structurally deficient, but was not repaired.

The poor state of our nation's infrastructure is not purely a Republican Party problem. Yes, a great deal of blame should fall on the President and the Republican majorities that controlled Congress until 2006. However, where are the Democrats? Except for a small minority, few spoke up from 2000 to 2006 regarding the urgent needs our nation faces, and now that they are in the majority, they have done little to meet our needs; instead, they engage in political posturing and finger pointing. Is it any wonder that both the President and Congress have such low approval ratings?

Is it too much to expect that when we drive on an interstate highway, it will not collapse because of years of neglect? It is similarly not too much to expect that when our fellow Americans are dying in a catastrophic hurricane, our government assist them quickly and competently. It is time for our elected representatives to start making government work for its citizens while its citizens are working to pay taxes to fund the government. Nothing less is acceptable.

Michael M. Shapiro, founder of ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence, New Jersey. He currently serves as the Chairman of the New Providence Democratic Party and as Editor of The Alternative Press Contact Mike at mike@shaptalk.com

The Republicrats Keep Expanding the Welfare State

By: Murray Sabrin

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed an extension of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP, along party lines that would increase funding by $50 billion over the next five years to $75 billion ($15 billion per year), from the $5 billion per year the federal government is currently spending.

The Senate version overwhelmingly passed on Thursday, 68-31, calls for a $35 billion hike to $60 billion over five years, or $12 billion per year. The program would be financed by increases in tobacco taxes and cuts in subsidies to private Medicare insurance plans for seniors.

Governor Corzine was in Washington D.C. on Wednesday lobbying his former colleagues to pass the more expensive SCHIP version passed by the House. Corzine wants a huge boost in the federal government’s commitment, because the funds earmarked for New Jersey would insure about half of the 250,000 uninsured children and another 10,000 to 15,000 adults in New Jersey.

That would mean more state spending at a time when New Jersey is broke. The feds and state government split the cost of SCHIP—65/35. So where will the money come from to enroll more children and adults in New Jersey? Moreover, if the SCHIP program is expanded, another 3 million more children would be covered nationally. Lawmakers want to pass an extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which covers 6.6 million children, ASAP because it is scheduled to expire on Sept. 30.

If either the House or Senate version is passed extending SCHIP, President Bush has threatened to veto the bill as too expensive. He wants only a $5 billion increase in the program over five years. In other words, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress and President Bush agree on the basic premise of SCHIP: the federal government should subsidize medical insurance for low and middle-income children. In short, both the Democrats and the Republicans want to enlarge the welfare state. They just debate how fast the welfare state should grow.

Instead, the debate in Congress should focus on a more fundamental proposition: Why are the federal government and state governments responsible of the well being of children? Aren’t parents supposed to be responsible for their children’s welfare? If you answer yes, then we as a society should create nongovernmental, nontaxpayer funded organizations in all localities to provide low cost or free healthcare for uninsured families. (More about this in future blogs.)

Regrettably, the goal of America’s political elites is to give us government funded universal health care on the installment plan, because they knew decades ago the American people would not embrace a total government takeover of health care in one fell swoop. Their strategy has been working brilliantly, so far. First, they gave us Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, SCHIP in 1997, prescription drugs for Medicare recipients in 2003, and now they want a major expansion SCHIP.

If President Bush does veto a substantial expansion of SCHIP this year, the Democrats will use his veto as a key campaign issue in 2008. And if the Democrats win the presidency next year and retain control of the Congress as well, government spending on healthcare will increase substantially in 2009 and bring us closer to a total government control over health care.

As one well known satirist said many years ago, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it is free.”

Murray Sabrin, Ph.D., is professor of finance in the Anisfield School of Business and executive director of the Center for Business and Public Policy. He also blogs for the Star-Ledger twice a week, www.nj.com/njvoices. Sabrin writes a weekly column every Monday for www.usadaily.com.

“Christmas Tree” Grants

Recently, State Senator Joseph Coniglio of Bergen County was informed that he is a target in an investigation by the United States Attorney’s Office into the now-infamous “Christmas Tree” grants provided by the New Jersey State Legislature. “Christmas Tree” grants are legislative grants added on to the State budget by legislators during the final days and hours before the budget is adopted, to aid particular constituencies or organizations, often located in their legislative district or employing friends or relatives of the legislators. In Coniglio’s case, a “Christmas Tree” grant of at least $1.6 million was allegedly provided to the Hackensack University Medical Center shortly after the Center hired the Senator as a plumbing contractor at a salary of $5,000 per month. There are two important aspects of the “Christmas Tree Scandal” that the mainstream media has been overlooking.

First, the concept of tacking items on to the budget right before passage has been around for many, many years and is something that occurs at all levels of government: local, state and federal, throughout the country. It is not the addition of these items that is the thrust of the problem; it is that some of these items have been added for groups or organizations that have more than a constituent relationship with the legislators in power. Some of these groups or organizations have provided jobs or contracts to the legislators themselves or to the relatives or close friends of the legislators, and have done so in close proximity to the awarding of these “Christmas Tree” grants. At the very least, this is an appearance of impropriety; more likely, it is corruption.

Second, the awarding of “Christmas Tree” grants has been trumped up by the mainstream media as a problem of the New Jersey Democratic Party. There are two reasons that the Democratic Party is bearing the brunt of these attacks. First, they hold a slim majority in the State Legislature and therefore have the ability to award such grants since without their votes, the budget probably would not pass. Second, it was only until recently and only when the Democrats controlled Trenton that these “Christmas Tree” grants to organizations and constituencies that have more than a constituency relationship to legislators are being investigated. If the U.S. Attorney’s Office had launched similar investigations while Republicans controlled the New Jersey State Legislature, it would likely have turned up similar instances of these grants being awarded to those providing contracts and jobs to legislators and their relatives. Furthermore, if the Republican Party controlled the New Jersey State Legislature and thus controlled the budgeting process, it would be the Republican Party in the mainstream media’s cross-hairs because they would behave no differently.

The truth is that the “Christmas Tree” grants provided to organizations with a “special relationship” to a legislator are nothing new. This practice has been going on for decades, under both Republican and Democratic majorities. It is only now that it is being investigated that New Jersey residents have learned of this shady practice. Corruption in New Jersey, or elsewhere, is not a Democratic Party issue. It is an issue deeply rooted in the conduct of both political parties. Only when the citizens and the media comprehend this will any kind of true and meaningful reform take place.

Michael M. Shapiro, founder of ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence, New Jersey. He currently serves as the Chairman of the New Providence Democratic Party and as Editor of The Alternative Press Contact Mike at mike@shaptalk.com