Insuring Mental Health Addiction Services

By: Senator Joe Vitale

Insurance coverage for alcohol addiction and mental health treatment would be greatly enhanced under a bill I have sponsored in the Senate along with Senator Barbara Buono. Mental health problems, alcohol and drug addictions, anorexia nervosa and other diseases need to be covered in the same manner as those which currently are. This is the right and fair thing to do for those suffering from the burdens of mental health problems and alcohol and drug addictions. We must provide a seamless health care safety net for those in need.

Parity is needed in order to provide services for residents that suffer from certain diseases like post traumatic stress disorder and other emotional disorders. People who can not afford treatment for these types of disorders are left with little, if any, options. Currently, there are a number of “biologically-based mental illnesses” that are covered. We must go further to include a broader range of diseases that greatly affect the population of New Jersey.

The bill would apply to state regulated health insurance contracts including hospital medical and health service corporations, commercial health insurers and the State Health Benefits Plan. The key section of the provision would expand the definition of treatment of alcoholism and substance abuse to include inpatient and outpatient care, detoxification, screening and assessment, and non-hospital residential treatment.

Early diagnosis and treatment of non-biologically based mental illnesses including alcohol and drug addiction will help prevent greater health care costs in the long run. The treatment community has made significant progress in the last decade to break the cycles of addiction with extremely positive, life-saving consequences. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Legislature to pass this legislation during this session.

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

Why Not Cut Spending?

Nearly all of the Democratic candidates for President have pledged to roll back the tax cuts enacted under President Bush and some have also said they will raise taxes in addition to the roll back. Although the roll back is a possible solution to our nation’s fiscal woes, before candidates for President rush to increase our taxes, how about cutting spending?

Under President Bush, federal government spending has skyrocketed: “No Child Left Behind”, Medicare prescription “reform,” and the war in Iraq have contributed to an exponential increase in the federal budget. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks continue to be provided with no end in sight. These are good places to start cutting costs.

“No Child Left Behind” has met with mixed results, with numerous findings indicating that many teachers simply teach to the required tests rather than having our children learn what they need to know. The costs of the program and its additional mandates to the States have contributed to increased federal and state government spending. Given the program’s mixed reviews and the increased costs attributed to it, the federal government should consider eliminating “No Child Left Behind” or the components that are not working.

Similarly, Medicare’s prescription drug “reform” has sharply increased the costs of the federal government, yet positive results are not readily apparent as many of our nation’s elderly continue to be unable to afford health care and prescription drugs. The “reform” appears to have mainly benefited the health care and pharmaceutical industries. As a result, the federal government should think about curtailing the newly enacted “reforms,” thereby saving our taxpayers billions.

Continue Reading ShapTalk.com: Why Not Cut Spending?

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

Hillary Clinton’s downfall?

By: Murray Sabrin

The Iowa caucuses will be held on January third, and voters in New Hampshire will cast their votes in the nation’s first primary on January eighth. Additional January primaries and caucuses will be held in Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida among other states.

And on February fifth, Super Tuesday, nearly two dozen states from New York, New Jersey and California and in-between the two coasts could determine the presidential nominees of both major political parties.

Senator Hillary Clinton has been leading in the national polls as well as in Iowa and in New Hampshire against her two main rivals, Senator Obama and former senator John Edwards, for the Democrat presidential nomination. However, in the latest ABC/ Washington Post poll Obama leads in Iowa with 30%, Clinton follows with 26% and Edwards comes in at 22%. In other words, Clinton could finish third in Iowa.

And, if an Obama win in Iowa turns into the Big Mo going into the New Hampshire primary a week later, where Clinton now has a huge lead over Obama, 36% to 22%, the “invincibility” of a Clinton presidential nomination, let alone a Clinton nomination, will be in serious jeopardy.

Why would the well oiled, highly disciplined Clinton for President Campaign, crash so quickly, when virtually all of the pundits have crowned her President Hillary Clinton as late as a week ago?

Yesterday's front page Wall Street Journal piece, “Clinton Hits Rough Patch As Iowa Showdown Nears,” explains most of the reasons. Clinton is not only trying to win her party’s presidential nomination, she is also running a parallel general election campaign for the presidency in the fall. So instead of telling her fellow Democrats what she believes, Clinton is trying to run in the “center” now in order to appear “acceptable” to independent voters and disgruntled Republicans.

It will not work. The era of “spinning” may be over. Many voters want straight talk, heartfelt answers, not platitudes, from the candidates.

If Hillary believes in big government, from more government spending and control of healthcare to supporting the military-industrial complex, to preemptive war in Iran, she should stand up and let the world what is her vision for America.

Does Hillary believe in higher tax rates, more spending, more regulation, less or more civil liberties, maintaining U.S. military bases around the world, etc.?

Hillary Clinton’s brain trust is violating Bill Clinton’s first axiom of politics, never look beyond the current campaign. If Hillary does not win the primary, will Bill tell her and the spinmeisters, I told you so?

Murray Sabrin, Ph.D., is Professor of Finance in the Anisfield School of Business, Ramapo College of New Jersey, where he is Executive Director of the Center for Business and Public Policy

Let the Sun Shine In and the Chips Fall Where They May

Recently, the Corzine Administration found itself in court fighting GOP attempts to obtain documents Governor Corzine deems private, including e-mails between the Governor and labor leader Carla Katz as well as a taxpayer-financed study regarding “monetizing” the Turnpike. As someone who holds himself out to be a reformer and a champion of open government, Governor Corzine should end these legal battles and move on to governing the State of New Jersey.

The Administration should release to the public any and all emails with Ms. Katz that deal with the public's business. Mr. Corzine is the Governor of the State; Ms. Katz is a major labor leader in New Jersey who negotiates with his office. Governor Corzine apparently has provided Ms. Katz with millions of dollars during the course of their personal relationship and they both chose to use e-mail to communicate with each other. The public has a right to know whether Mr. Corzine and/or Ms. Katz abused their offices in the process. Any emails pertaining to the purely personal nature of their relationship should be withheld. If the GOP oversteps by attempting to obtain those emails, succeeds and releases them to the public, it is the GOP that will pay the price at the polls.

Continue reading ShapTalk.com: Let the Sun Shine In and the Chips Fall Where They May.

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

Warren Buffett: big government capitalist

Murray Sabrin

Last week, Warren Buffett, the second richest American with a net worth of more than $50 billion, came to Washington D.C. and testified in Congress. He told the Senate Finance Committee that the estate tax is needed “to prevent our democracy from becoming a dynastic plutocracy.” Buffett is adamantly opposed to inherited wealth. That’s why his children will receive about one percent of his estate on his passing and the rest will go to charity.

In short, Buffett’s estate could be worth billions more if he lives to a ripe old age and it will pay virtually no estate taxes, yet he wants the estates of small business owners, farmers and successful individuals to pony up billions to Uncle Sam upon their deaths.

Buffett’s personal social views or for that matter anyone else’s should not be the basis for public policy. If the Oracle of Omaha does not want to leave his estate to his children, grandchildren, etc., that is his prerogative.

As for the rest of us, in a free society adults should have the absolute right to give away their property upon their passing to their children, relatives, friends, colleagues, pets, charities, etc., and the federal government should not confiscate any portion of a person’s lifetime accumulation of wealth upon death. Why? Death, as one senator remarked at the Senate Finance Committee hearing, should not be a taxable event.

In a free society, the government is created to protect the people’s rights not confiscate their property. That was the promise of the American Revolution. The colonists seceded from the British Empire to form a nation based on liberty not entitlement, nor was government supposed to redistribute income and wealth. That was the promise of the Founders. Instead, the ideas of big government have taken root in America for the past 100 years and are embraced by capitalists as well as the intelligentsia, journalists and individuals across the political spectrum.

Warren Buffett, the son of the libertarian Republican congressman Howard Buffett, obviously did not learn from his late father that the government should be limited to a few authorized activities enumerated in the Constitution. Instead, Warren Buffett, capitalist par excellence, supports Hillary Clinton for president. If Hillary is elected president, the American people will have been governed by a Bush, a Clinton, a Bush and then a Clinton. What kind of democracy is this? Two families possibly occupying the White House for 28 years if Hillary is elected in 2008 and serves two terms.

If Buffett is so concerned about “dynasties” in America, he should renounce his support of Hillary and embrace the only candidate in the race who is his father’s intellectual heir, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

Warren Buffett is a brilliant investor and from all reports a straight shooter. When it comes to public policy, Buffett should reread his father’s views on the welfare-warfare state. He should conclude that government is best that governs least. And that means scrapping the estate tax, the income tax and downsizing the federal government, especially the overseas military bases that have nothing to do with our national security.

Murray Sabrin, Ph.D., is Professor of Finance in the Anisfield School of Business, Ramapo College of New Jersey, where he is Executive Director of the Center for Business and Public Policy

Let’s End Profiteering From Public Service

Many of our elected officials on the State, County and local level are using their public office to financially reward themselves at taxpayer expense. One example of this profiteering is elected officials, who are also attorneys, obtaining public business for themselves and their law firms by directly or indirectly using their position to do so. This business is often obtained without competitive bidding. As a result, these elected officials and their firms are getting rich and we taxpayers are paying for it.

The problem is not a Democratic or Republican one; it is a problem that is pervasive in both political parties. For example, Senator Bob Smith (D-Middlesex) is a lawyer who happens to represent towns within his district. Most of his contracts are awarded without competitive bidding. While it is possible that these towns, whose officials are from the same political party as the Senator, are hiring Mr. Smith because he does high-quality legal work, it is just as possible that Senator Smith is getting the business because he is a public official. Similarly, as an attorney, former Senator John Bennett (R) represented numerous towns in his own electoral district during his tenure. This was also done without competitive bidding, the officials in those towns were from the same political party as the Senator, and thus he and/or his firm were able to profit handsomely. Again, by all accounts, Senator Bennett is a skilled municipal law practitioner, but did his law firm receive the municipal work because of his skill or because of his public position?

How do we solve this problem? There are a few possibilities that come to mind: We can have our elected officials serve full-time and thus eliminate the problem. Laws could be passed making it a conflict of interest for currently-serving elected officials to obtain public work. Another suggestion might be that competitive bidding be enacted for all public contracts on every level of government, thereby helping to alleviate the problem.

Whatever the solution, it is time to stop the gravy train on which many of our elected officials are riding. They have been utilizing their public office to obtain public work, thereby financially enriching themselves at great cost to our taxpayers. Given the recent election and the mood of the electorate, which is becoming less and less enamored with politicians profiting at the public’s expense, perhaps the time is ripe for reform.

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

On My Retirement from Partisan Politics

As many of you know, four years ago I decided to see how local politics really operates and became Chairman of the New Providence Democratic Party in New Jersey. New Providence had not elected a Democrat in nearly fifty years. I promised to serve a maximum of four years as Chairman and, keeping to my promise, I retired on November 7, 2007. I now no longer serve in any political capacity and am thus able to devote my full energies to my family, work and this column.

We have made significant progress for the residents of New Providence during the past four years. When I first became Chairman, we announced a platform of openness, accountability and transparency and, during the past four years, have seen our issues take center stage and many of our proposals later adopted by the Council. We proposed ethics reform, including "Pay to Play," which limited the influence of campaign contributions on governmental decision-making. This was later adopted by the Council. We championed competitive bidding for contracts, which is in the process of being adopted by the Council this year. We proposed televised Council meetings, which are slated to occur in 2008. One of many lessons I learned through this experience is that on the local level, a nonpartisan agenda that is focused on creating a more responsive and responsible government can both advance positive change as well as develop a base of support for any political party. Given the nonpartisan agenda we developed in New Providence and our success in such a short period of time, local political parties of all partisan affiliations should consider such an agenda in their towns.

We have also made significant strides in creating a viable alternative for voters in New Providence, where Republicans outnumber Democrats by more than a 3-to-1 margin. During the past four years, our average meeting attendance has more than quadrupled and our active membership that could be counted on one hand when I started as Chair, today is over a hundred. We have proven that the Democratic Party can be viable in New Providence and we have fielded solid slates of local candidates each year. Through this experience, I also learned that with hard work, patience, and grassroots activity, a minority party in any town in New Jersey can have a voice and eventually be in a position to elect representatives to the local governing body.

While we have accomplished a great deal, there is more work yet to be done. This has been left in the capable hands of our next Chairperson. It has been an honor and a privilege to serve the residents of New Providence and I thank them for the opportunity to do so.


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

Why Has the Media Been Nominating Hillary? And What About Rudy?

What is Joe Biden’s position on the budget deficit? What is Chris Dodd’s platform? Why is there virtually no coverage of Bill Richardson? Why have there been so media stories laced with connotations that John Edwards has already lost? Why are there so many headlines regarding Barack Obama as a fading star? Why are there so few stories about recent polls showing Hillary with unfavorable ratings topping 50% and so little ink being spilled regarding Mrs. Clinton’s “baggage”? In short, why, up until this past week’s debate in Iowa, did the media crown Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee? There are several possibilities:

First, the profit-driven media is interested in ratings and ad revenue and nothing says “ratings and ad revenue” like the sordid scandals, real and imaginary, that will focus on Hillary Clinton should she secure the nomination. Furthermore, the story of a former First Lady and a woman running for President will also command an audience. Lastly, the dynamic of a restoration of the Clinton years versus the Republican alternative is a story that makes the media drool.

Second, both the moderates/liberals and conservative members of the media would like to see Mrs. Clinton become the Democratic nominee. For the moderates/liberals, despite her vote for the Iraq War, she represents a pendulum shift back to Clinton-era domestic policies that favored a more supportive federal government and a more diplomatic foreign policy. For conservatives, Hillary is the one Democratic candidate that can reunite the fractured Republican Party, resurrecting its chances for electoral success.

Third, the media is actually thirsting for a general election fight between two larger-than-life personalities who will engage in partisan warfare on a level not before seen in our country: Hillary versus Rudy. If that were not the case, all of the sordid dealings of the former Mayor, from Bernard Kerik to divorcing his wife on television, would have already been front page fodder for months. A Hillary/Rudy battle would lead to daily front-page barbs that will both resurrect a faltering newspaper industry and reinvigorate the audience for television news. It will also lead to record-breaking fundraising that will help financially support the various media outlets that will air and print campaign ads.

While Hilary may be the most qualified Democratic candidate in the field and could very well turn out to be the best general election candidate as well, shouldn’t Democratic voters decide the Primary election and not the Fourth Estate? Likewise, shouldn’t Republican voters decide their nominee, not the media?

This past week, the media began to focus negative light on Mrs. Clinton after a less-than stellar performance at a debate in Iowa demonstrated that she may not be a lock for the nomination. Also this past week, after a dismal showing by Mr. Giuliani at a gathering of conservatives, he received several days of critical press coverage while several Republican contenders including John McCain, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee received substantial and positive press coverage, possibly signaling the beginning of the end of the press’s facilitation of the Giuliani candidacy. Perhaps the media is ready to finally start doing its job. Thankfully, with the primaries still months away, it’s not too late.

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