Doggie diaries: The story of Rosie and Sophie Just hanging in the backyard

We had the yard regraded and drainage installed to address a flooding problem that had been getting progressively worse since last summer.

As part of the project, we had some sod installed -- which the dogs (Rosie pictured) view as a very comfortable outdoor rug.

This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!

To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.

Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.

So much for the great liberal hope. Again.

There are only two explanations for what Barack Obama said this week about the Supreme Court: He believes that the court -- and not just the current, rightwing incarnation, but the liberal court of the '60s and '70s -- has been too activist in its approach, or he is attempting to defang the right as he moves to replace Justice John Paul Stevens.

Here is what he said on Air Force One on Wednesday about the court (I saw this initially on Glen Greenwald's blog, but the quote is from the Atlanta Journal Constitution):

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I mean, here's what I will say. It used to be that the notion of an activist judge was somebody who ignored the will of Congress, ignored democratic processes, and tried to impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically. And in the '60s and '70s, the feeling was, is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach.

What you're now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error. And I think rather than a notion of judicial restraint we should apply both to liberals and conservative jurists, what you're seeing is arguments about original intent and other legal theories that end up giving judges an awful lot of power; in fact, sometimes more power than duly-elected representatives.

And so I'm not looking at this particular judicial nomination through that prism alone, but I think it is important for us to understand that judicial -- the concept of judicial restraint cuts both ways. And the core understanding of judicial restraint is, is that generally speaking, we should presume that the democratic processes and laws that are produced by the House and the Senate and state legislatures, et cetera, that the administrative process that goes with it is afforded some deference as long as core constitutional values are observed.

Liberals need to read these comments closely. The president appears to be endorsing a very narrow view of the judiciary's role, though it is possible he just chose his words without the requisite care. In any case, as Greenwald points out, the president should have been asked to explain what he meant and to offer examples of the kind of overreach he seems to be criticizing.

For liberals, this is important because the decisions made by the court in the 1960s and 1970s "form the bedrock of progressive legal thought regarding the Constitution and the Supreme Court," and his comments are consistent with other cases in which he made a "typical effort to show how fair-minded he is by attacking the Dreaded Left."

I've pointed this out before. Going after one's base is foolish, but it is tried-and-true extablishment liberalism that dates back to the Clinton years, the willingness to sacrifice political principles to maintain some sort of legislative, electoral or public relations advantage. And it is something the president has proven himself adept at doing.

The problem, of course, is that doing so undercuts the very people who helped put him in office, which only contributes to the mix of apathy and anger out there that is moving us inexorably toward a political implosion. The scales used to address the big issues have been weighed down by a conservative thumb.



But that in and of itself is not the only criteria by which I'm making selections on judges.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Drill, baby, drill -- or, more accurately, boom, baby, burn

The explosion in the Gulf -- along with the lost lives and the damage that it is doing the region's economy -- should be enough to get President Obama to a abandon his off-shore drilling plan. I said "should," because it is not clear that anyone is ready to stand up to corporate American on the issue.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Placing a cap on sanity

Property tax caps do not work. Ask the people in Colorado Springs who are doing without street lights. Hell, ask the people right here in New Jersey what happens when a cap is imposed, even when it is a rather loose 4 percent.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal Washington think tank, sums up the problem pretty straightforwardly: Caps. CBPP says, "may hold down property taxes," but "they are likely to impair local governments’ ability to provide education, public safety, and other services residents demand and need. They also are likely to make the local revenue system more regressive."

Property tax caps do nothing to change the main drivers behind higher property taxes. They cannot slow the increase in the cost of health care or fuel, for example, which reflects forces outside of the control of local officials. Nor do they change the demand for local public services, such as quality K-12 education, public safety, and good roads.

There are ways of mitigating these problems -- replacing property taxes with state funding, giving citizens a right to override caps at the ballot box, shifting revenue from property taxes to other sources -- but they rarely are invoked and when they are tend to exacerbate the impact of the cap. (Richer communities can afford to override, while lower-income communities cannot; sales tax and use fees tend to hit lower-income residents hardest.)

Academic studies have found that in most cases, property tax limits have led not to a shrinkage in the public sector but instead to a shift to other revenue sources, such as state aid and fees. In places where the caps have had an effect, however, the outcome has been negative.

And yet, Gov. Chris Christie is still pushing this dubious notion, telling New Jersey mayors to expect his proposed 2.5 percent tax levy cap to gain passage (it has to be approved by the state Legislature and then by voters in November).

Christie said he will propose legislation next week to put a constitutional amendment instituting the cap on the November ballot. If legislators pass the ballot question and it’s approved by voters, municipalities will have to hold their property tax growth 2.5 percent a year unless voters overrule it by referendum. Under Christie’s proposal, if a town raises property taxes less than the capped level one year, it will be able to bank those savings and exceed the cap in future years if necessary.

New Jersey residents already have dysfunctional government, including too many different government entities and too great a reliance on property taxes. But there remains some flexibility in the system, unlike the travesty that California and Colorado governments have become. Do we really want to fix our problems by making them worse?

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Q&A with Mark Doty

Mark Doty will be reading at the South Brunswick Library poetry series (which I organize) on Sunday at 2 p.m. He is a wonderful poet, so come on out.

If you need any incentive, here is my e-mail interview with him, which ran today in the Post.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Dispatches: Criminal culture

Dispatches, on the legalized criminality that plagues not just Wall Street but American capitalism, can be found here.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

We love smaller government -- except when we don't

ABC this morning discussed a poll that shows some difficulties facing Democrats as they head into the November elections. The numbers show a real anger at incumbents, meaning we could see some seats flip, though it still appears unlikely that either house will flip parties.

Something else caught my eye, however. It was this bit of information:

In another vulnerability for the president, Americans by 56-40 percent said they preferred smaller government with fewer services -- almost exactly the average the past 26 years -- but by a vast 77-15 percent thought Obama prefers the opposite, larger government with more services. That, plus concerns about the deficit, seem ripe for a 2010 campaign theme for the Republican Party.

People say they want/prefer smaller government. As ABC points out, the numbers have remained pretty consistent since the Reagan administration.

This is not news, nor is it particularly enlightening. Americans are inundated with anti-government rhetoric, and not just from Fox News. They get it from the mainstream stations, as well, it seems anticlimactic that Americans would say they dislike government. As always, the definition of small government is left unstated, as is the impact that shrinking government and cutting services would have on the lives they live.

People want smaller government, but what they really mean is they want it for others and not necessarily for themselves.

Middle class taxpayers want welfare curtailed but yell when their mortgage deductions are cut.

We hate regulations, but when the government fails to ensure that hte hamburger bought at the local store is tainted with e coli, we should loudly and demand action.

We want good schools, well-stocked libraries, police departments with enough manpower to keep us safe. We want roads without potholes, bridges that do not collapse, working traffic lights. We want a safety net when we fall on tough times (though we prefer that it not stretch too far or cover too many people we don't like).

The Tea Party right now lives the contradiction. This motley collection of angry white folks has been protesting the alleged growth of government under the Obama administration, calling the president a socialist, a communist, a fascist, Stalin, Hitler (as if these terms were interchangeable). But think about what they also say: "Keep government out of my Medicare."

Just as interestingly, we have the Arizona immigration law, which has support from the Tea Partiers (or most of them), even though it expands police power in the state -- and they support harsh restrictions on the border, another expansion of police power.

But that expansion is OK, because the people at the target end of the expansion, are the dark ones, the ones who do not speak English.

As I said, Americans want smaller government -- but only on our terms.



Send me an e-mail.

• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

The soullessness of the machine

"The Goldman folks have no soul, selling crap as gold and claiming no responsibility."
-- my Tweet on the Goldman hearings from earlier today


The few moments of today's Senate hearing on financial reforms and the role Goldman Sachs played was, to say the least, surreal. Goldman officials appeared defiant, which just underscores the need to rein in an industry that no longer has much to do with creating economic security for the country.

My column this week, which should go live tomorrow, talks about the gutting of the regulatory system across the corporate world -- not just finance, but mining, air safety, consumer goods, food and drugs -- and how it has allowed big business to function as if it was the Cosa Nostra, acting with impunity.

It is easy to blame George W. Bush for this. His administration was probably more aggressive than any before in dismantling the regulatory edifice. But that only tells a small part of the story. Every presidential administration beginning with Jimmy Carter's in the late 1970s has stripped away some portion of the regulatory apparatus, so each bears some responsibility for the mess we now find ourselves in.

But blame only goes so far. It is time to reverse the trend, to protect average Americans from the predatory nature of international business -- and the only way we can do this is via strong regulations designed to level the playing field, to keep business honest. I don't say this lightly -- I am generally skeptical of large concentrations of power, but I have a greater fear at the moment of unchecked corporate power.

We used to understand this -- Teddy Roosevelt busted the trusts and even Dwight Eisenhower warned against the growing military-industrial complex. Barack Obama told us he understood, as well, but it has become clear that he is not interested in challenging the status quo anymore than anyone else working in Washington or any of the state capitals.

If we hope to safe our environment, our economy, our democracy, we need to stop paying lip sevice to the legalized crime that occurs on Wall Street everyday and do something about it.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Financial reforms that are too small to work

Gretchen Morgenson, writing in the Business section of today's New York Times, offers a fairly straightforward and succinct explanation of why the financial reforms being proposed in Congress are likely to fail.

The reforms, she says, "would do little to cure the epidemic unleashed on American taxpayers by the lords of finance and their bailout partners.

The central problem is that neither the Senate nor House bills would chop down big banks to a more manageable and less threatening size. The bills also don’t eliminate the prospect of future bailouts of interconnected and powerful companies.

The issue, ultimately, is size. For any financial reform proposal to be more than a Band-Aid, it needs to address the problems of banks growing so big that their failure becomes dangerous for the economy as a whole. They either need to be broken into smaller, less threatening institutions or have their ability to "leverage" limited. (Leverage is the use of debt to supplement an investment and boost its apparent profitibility.)
Such is the view of Richard W. Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.


“The social costs associated with these big financial institutions are much greater than any benefits they may provide,” Mr. Fisher said in an interview last week. “We need to find some international convention to limit their size.”

Limiting their leverage is another way to begin defanging these monsters, Mr. Fisher said. But he concedes that there is little will to do either. “It takes an enormous amount of political courage to say we are going to limit size and limit leverage,” he said. “But to me it makes the ultimate sense. The misuse of leverage is always the root cause of every financial crisis.”

And yet, the financial fixes being proposed failed to address either problem. Miles Mogulescu, writing on Huffington Post, calls the chief proposal a "a moderately helpful financial reform bill" that should "address some of the problems of the banking system that led to the financial crisis and the bailouts," but one that "may be Too Weak to Succeed by allowing the megabanks to remain Too Big to Fail, thus insuring that the next cycle of boom, bust and bailout remains baked into the system."

Ouch.

He is urging support of an amendment to the reform bill, one designed to cut to the chase on the issue and force the dismantling of the largest financial institutions. (Petition can be found here.)

Senators Sherrod Brown and Ted Kaufman have introduced the "Safe Banking Act" which would put a hard cap of 3% of Gross Domestic Product on the assets of all bank holding companies. This would mean that that 6 largest banks which now hold assets exceeding 60% of GDP -- Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs -- would be broken up into smaller banks that would be Small Enough to Fail. This is what Teddy Roosevelt did in 1911 when he broke up the Standard Oil trust.

The Roosevelt precedent is important, because it should insulate the amendment from the inevitable attacks on its consitutionality and Americanness -- the chief critical approach used by the pro-business crowd these days. Unlike the Dodd bill and the various compromises being worked out between Democrats and Republicans with the blessing of the White House, the Brown-Kaufman amendment actually goes to the heart of the crisis that left us mired in our current economic mess and nearly pushed us off the precipice. To tinker around the edges while leaving the general outlines of our dysfunctional financial system in place is dangerously foolish.

Congress, as Morgenson says, needs to do more than pass "financial regulations that do not eliminate the heads-bankers-win, tails-taxpayers-lose mentality that has driven most of the bailouts during this sorry episode."

Companies that are too mighty to fail must be broken up. And incentives in the nation’s regulatory system that reward size with subsidies should not be enshrined into law. They should be eliminated.

Only then will America be safe from toxic banking practices and the burdensome rescues they require.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Dispatches: Price of admission

My latest Dispatches column went up earlier this week, on the inherent (though legal) corruption of public bodies hiring lobbyists.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Grassroots: Casting the 'Net

Grassroots in The Progressive Populist on the court's FCC internet ruling.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Stupidity and hatred in Arizona

Paul Rosenberg sums up the incredible stupidity, viciousness and hate behind the immigration "reform" signed into law by Arizona's temporary governor the other day. This law is just plain stupid and evil.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Changing the deficit debate

Finally, it appears that someone in Washington is willing to take on that city's biggest sacred cow -- the military.

Dan Froomkin reported yesterday on Huffington Post that U.S. Rep. Barney Frank is convening "his own bipartisan commission" that "will specifically look at ways to reduce the bloated military budget."

Defense cuts seems to be politically off-limits these days, but the group convened by the outspoken liberal congressman from Massachusetts shares a belief that America is "overextended and overcommitted" and that there should be a "substantial reduction in the reach of American military commitments," Frank told HuffPost.

His likely targets: unnecessary weapons systems and overseas military bases -- and a savings of $100 billion a year.

Defense spending has outpaced the need for it, he says, with weapons and bases creating their own skewed justifications.

"During the Cold War, 26 percent of military spending in the world was American; now it's 41 percent. So we have fewer enemies and we're spending more money."

Lets have no illusions about what Frank's commission is likely to produce. The military remains Washington's biggest sacred cow for a lot of reasons -- corporate profits, the need for politicians to look tough -- so any real cuts proposed by Frank are likely to go nowhere, at least in the short term.

In the long run, though, Frank's commission has the potential to alter the conversation, which could lead to defense cuts down the road. And that's key. We spend way too much on the military, way too much to project power around the globe. The money spent on the military is money that could be, should be spent on something more productive for society, on expanding access to health care and rebuilding our bridges and modernizing our power grid and fixing our schools and hiring teachers.

So bravo Barney. Keep up the good work.



The key to defense budget cutting, Frank said, is to attack the notion that the U.S. military needs to be everywhere in the world militarily. "If you let them insist that there is a need for worldwide military engagement, we will be at a disadvantage when we fight the specific fights" to cut programs, he said.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Skewing the debate with disingenuous rhetoric

I teach a developmental level English class at Middlesex County College twice a week and I've spent the last couple of classes talking about logical fallacies.

The issue is that the students tend to fall into these errant patterns as they make their arguments in their writing -- writing around the debate or mistakenly allowing a single person to stand in for a group.

One of the errors we've talked about is called the straw-man fallacy -- or one in which a proposition is criticized by distorting the original proposition so that it seems outrageous, weak or dangerous and then knocking down the distortion.

An example -- which I included on a quiz today -- is this (phrased a bit differently):

Actual argument: We should legalize marijuana for medical purposes.

Distorted argument: Allowing unrestricted access to drugs will lead to crime and drug dependency. Therefore, legalizing medical marijuana is wrong.

The problem here is simple. The argument being disputed is not the argument being offere; it is proposing a far more extensive legalization than the original proposition offers. However, the critic uses the more extreme distortion to win debate points.

I have The Dylan Ratigan Show on in the background as I'm working this afternoon, and he had as guests Jonathan Capehart of The Washingon Post and Mark Tapscott of The Washington Examiner. Capehart echoed something that both former President Bill Clinton and Post columnist E.J. Dionne have said -- that the ratcheting up of harsh rhetoric and the use of violent metaphors will create a climate for actual violence.

Tapscott responded with the classic straw-man, accusing Capehart -- and Dionne and Clinton and liberals in general -- of calling for government to step in to ban speech, asking who would be making the decision on what speech should be permitted.

While I think we have to be careful when we confuse speech with action -- we fight the toxic rhetoric of lock-and-load Sarah Palin and the Tea Party crowd with better, more effective speech -- it is pretty clear when you listen to Capehart or Clinton or read Dionne that they are not talking about restrictions. They are talking about pushing back against the ugliness and finding ways to tone down the rhetoric, to cool it so that a rational, if not polite political debate can move forward.

Tapscott, however, would have none of that. He's erected his straw man and felt perfectly comfortable (with what I would characterize as a smug half smile on his face -- am I engaging in an ad hominem attack?) in distorting what Capehart had to say so that he could look like the defender of the First Amendment. (The actual video is not yet available; I'll post as soon as it is.) And Ratigan called it a good back and forth, even though it was anything but.

How can I teach students -- and new journalists, for that matter -- that they should avoid these logical fallacies if the people running the nation's editorial pages (Tapscott is the Examiner's editorial page editor) view them as perfectly legitimate debate tools?

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

The future is now at first

Ike Davis is coming to Citi Field. The young slugger who the Mets view as the first-baseman of the future is going to get a chance to make his future now -- something the Mets should have done on opening day.

The Mets had nothing to lose with this move. Davis either will prove to be ready (either as the bopper they are hoping for or as a future bopper who can handle himself as he grows into a middle-of-the-order guy), or he isn't and gets sent back down for more seasoning.

The alternative, at the moment, is Fernando Tatis, which is not much of an alternative at all.

Let's hope Ike makes a splash and turns into the lefty presence the team needs.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Funding the lobbying infrastructure

Local governments say that it's money well spent, but the $2 million paid by municipal and other local public bodies to lobbyists is little more than a transfer of tax dollars into the pockets of glorified ad-men.

The money, says the Star-Ledger, "is hidden, with no requirements that governments tell the public what their lobbyists are up to."

Municipal officials argue that the "shrinking pot of state revenues" makes it necessary to have someone tasked with digging up and fighting for the cash, but as state comptroller Michael Boxer points out, it pushes up the cost of government at a time when we are slashing necessary services.

“It really is a race to the bottom, ultimately, because as some government entities hire a lobbyist to advocate for them, other government entities feel compelled to do so to level the playing field,” said state comptroller Matthew Boxer. “At the end of the day, the same amount of taxpayer dollars are going to be awarded — but we’ve imposed a transaction cost.”

South Brunswick, for instance, spent $36,000 last year on a lobbyist to focus on its township bus program and to fight for money to widen Route 1. That's not a lot of cash. But, given that the township is closed one Friday a month and that it has laid off employees, I have to wonder if paying a lobbyist is really the best use of the money.

Gov. Chris Christie appears to agree. His spokesman, Michael Drewniak, told the Star-Ledger that "local governments don’t need lobbyists."

“It’s a waste of money. Save it. Use it for something else,” Drewniak said.

The chances of that happening are slim, however, unless the governor and the state Legislature step in and address the issue. An outright ban might not pass constitutional muster -- lobbyists, after all, include everyone from high-priced private firms to the State League of Municipalities and the New Jersey Sierra Club and they have a right to petition the government. At the same time, the state constitution grants the Legislature the right to regulate local operations, including placing limits on how its money is spent, which leaves open the possibility that the state could place restrictions on spending that effectively limit or eliminate the spending of public money on lobbying activities.

Or it could impose strict disclosure rules, similar to those in place for private entities.

Boxer and ELEC executive director Jeff Brindle say, at the very least, lobbyists and local governments should be forced disclose their interactions and the cost. Boxer said towns should explain why they hired lobbyists and what they got in return.


“There’s actually less oversight and transparency than there is when private dollars are at issue,” Boxer said.

What is clear -- to me, at least -- is that we can not afford to be spending money on the Trenton version of K Street when we do not have enough money available to maintain our local streets.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

We are getting there

The progress on same-sex marriage has been too slow, but we have to admit there has been some progress, as Jason Capehart points out here. Time is on the side of those of us who believe marriage should be available to all.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Dogs in the Rain, a new poem

A new poem on The Subterranean site -- "Dogs in the Rain." I think it's complete, but I'm open to criticism.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Good cop, bad cop, confusing message

Is this a case of good cop/bad cop? And exactly what message are these guys -- Gov. Christie and Commissioner Schundler -- trying to send to voters?

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

The dangers of governing with a mandate you haven't earned

Gov. Chris Christie won 49 percent of the vote in November to defeat an unpopular incumbent governor by 5 percentage points.

To many -- primarily his Republican supporters -- that was a landslide and gave him a mandate. But the math is pretty simple: More than half of the state's voters backed someone other than Christie and -- a key point that has been lost in the discussion -- only one Assembly seat changed parties. Christie's win, it would seem, had more to do with him not being the other guy.

And yet, he has been governing aggressively from the right, using a hatchet to chop the state budget into bits, apparently ready to make Grover Norquist's goal of a government small enough to drown in a bath tub a reality.

So, what has been the response? The state's papers (aside from conservative Star-Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine and me) have given him a fairly wide berth. The public, however, appears to have a far less generous view.

Monmouth University released its latest poll today, showing that the governor's approval rating has been on the decline and that many are dissatisfied with his budget:

When Governor Chris Christie unveiled his first state budget last month, he claimed the cuts were tough but fair. The latest Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Poll finds that Garden State residents agree with only half of that assessment. The cuts may be tough, but New Jerseyans see some groups, including teachers, as being disproportionately hurt. The poll also finds the governor coming up with the short end of the stick in his battle with the state teachers’ union.


Governor Christie’s job rating currently stands at 41% approve to 44% disapprove among all state residents, and 42% to 44% among registered voters. As a comparison, 34% of New Jerseyans gave thumbs up to the prior governor, Jon Corzine, at the same point in his term, while 37% gave a negative rating.

The driving force behind public opinion on the governor is his budget plan, something that an overwhelming 9-in-10 New Jerseyans have been paying some attention to. Governor Christie’s proposal gets mixed reviews. Among those aware of Christie’s budget plan, 46% say that his proposal is the product of tough and thoughtful choices, while an identical 46% see it as more of the same old political dealings. This may not represent an overwhelming endorsement of the incumbent’s plan, but it is decidedly more positive than opinion of Jon Corzine’s first budget, which only 32% saw as tough and thoughtful, compared to fully 60% who felt it was the product of backroom deals.

Furthermore, 22% of the public say they are satisfied with Chris Christie’s budget plan and another 32% say they can live with it even if they are not necessarily satisfied. However, a sizable 44% report being dissatisfied with the governor’s proposal. Again, these numbers are not great, but slightly better than his predecessor’s – only 10% of New Jerseyans were satisfied with Corzine’s initial budget, while 41% were dissatisfied.

To be fair, the governor had a disastrous fiscal situation to deal with. The state has been spending more than it has been taking in for years, and it has been clear since the day Jon Corzine took office in 2006 that something had to be done. To his credit, Gov. Christie is attempting to put the state on sounder fiscal footing; his approach, however, ignores public priorities and has little to do with fairness.

I've written about this before -- including yesterday -- but this budget leaves tax revenue on the table in the form of the expired income tax surcharge on those making more than $400,000. It slashes spending on public education (while leaving the charter school law in place, meaning that charters can form and ultimately siphon money from traditional public schools); asks poor seniors to pay fees for services and so on. There is a lot of pain being spread here, but the folks at the upper end of the income bracket, the ones most able to afford cuts, are the ones being spared.

We will have three more years of this -- unless this petition to recall the governor catches fire (not likely). The best hope is a concerted and focused campaign by New Jersey voters to push back against the governor's budget, to make it clear that the priorities he has outlined in his spending plan are not priorities supported by  a majority of New Jerseyans and to give support to legislators of either party who are willing to stand up and make it clear that they will not support the budget.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Ideology, shortsightedness and the Christie administration

A story in today's Star-Ledger gets at the crux of the ideological manner in which Chris Christie has approached the state budget.

I should make it clear that all governors approach budgeting with an ideological bias -- it is at the center of what it means to creat policy and budgets, by assigning dollar values to programs, are policy documents.

But Gov. Christie has rhetorically approached the budget as if his only goal was weening the state off unnecessary spending. He has talked repeatedly about how we have lived beyond our means for too long and how we need to stop, pretending that his cuts have had little to do with his political philosophy.

That, of course, is horse hockey (as Col. Potter might say on "M*A*S*H"). Christie has targeted the teachers union as the boogeyman of his administration, while slashing programs designed to ameliorate the effects of economic hardship (changes in unemployment benefits, for instance).

Today's Ledger, cites another program cut (as part of a larger story on the potential loss of federal aid) that stands out for its callousness toward women and its consistency with the anti-abortion right's antipathy toward women's health issues:

The state is giving up a chance to get federal money for family-planning services after Christie proposed cutting all funding for doctor visits that include gynecological visits, birth control, breast exams and disease testing and treatment. Because the Christie administration doesn’t want to put up any money for the services, the state had to withdraw an application asking the federal government to fund 90 percent of the bill, a decision Democratic lawmakers have criticized.

Christie, as he made clear during the campaign, is a pro-lifer. That does not automatically place him in what I'll call the antiwomen camp; but the antiabortion movement has a history of attacking women's health programs. Christie's budget cut must be seen in this vein, especially when paired with his unwillingness to reinstate the higher marginal rate on those who earn more than $400,000 a year.

The state's press has been a bit soft on the governor since he came to office, allowing him to write his own narrative and create his own political story. In doing so, Christie gets to portray himself as being above politics, acting without the kinds of motivations that drive other politicians. That, of course, could not be further from the truth.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Mine explosion explodes myth of clean coal

I wish improved safety oversight and regulation would be enough to prevent future disasters like the West Virginia mine explosion, but the reality is that the most effective regulation will only have a modest effect in the future.

The reason has nothing to do with regulation, which should be strengthened significant, but with coal itself. Coal requires physical extraction, which is horribly dangerous. The only way to prevent these deadly events in the future, as Jeff Goodell of Rolling Stone told Keith Olberman on Tuesday, "is to stop mining and burning coal."

It can't be done overnight, Goodell admits, because the United States "get(s) half of our electricity from coal."

No one is suggesting that we stop burning coal immediately. But, you know, it‘s very clear in the big picture that the sort of era of fossil fuels is over, that we‘re moving away from coal in general.

Or, at least we should be.

The dangers and environmental impact of the extraction process bely the promise of future technological fixes on the climate front. Even if so-called clean coal wasn't just a mirage, a pipe dream, the cost of digging it out of the ground is just too high and it will only get higher and higher and it's just not worth the price.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Caps are just a foolish idea

What is the mania among conservatives for spending caps? They are a foolish approach to budgeting, because they restrict government's ability to deal with what comes its way and forces future citizens to deal with priorities set by shortsighted leaders from some previous generation.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Lineup contends for mediocrity: Game two and the winning streak ends

Coming back from 6-1 to tie the game might be enough for some Mets fans to say this team is different than what we've seen in recent years. But the faltering of the lineup in the ninth inning -- thanks primarily to two ballplayers that should not be on this roster -- is more likely to be this team's hallmark.

Think about how the bottom of the ninth unfolded. With a shaky Leo Nunez pitching, Leo Nunez pitching for Florida, pinch-hitter Ruben Tejada, a 20-year-old shortstop, fouled out to lead the inning off before David Wright walked, putting the winning run on first.

That's where things fell apart. Mike Jacobs worked a long at bat, but ultimately wasted an out with a pop up to second. Jason Bay came up and, after Wright stole second, was intentionally walked. That brought up Garry Matthews Jr., who grounded out to shortstop with the winning run at second.

The Marlins then scored in the top of the 10th and the Mets went meakly.

But the lack of a real cleanup hitter and Matthews' rather nominal presence behind Bay in the lineup means that the Mets will have issues in these situations all year, unless they can find a competent six-hitter to keep pitchers honest.

We're only two games in, but the starting pitching is not the only issue the Mets have. As long as the Mets  have to send out players like Jacobs and Matthews, the team cannot be expected to truly contend.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Will court ruling on Comcast light fire under FCC

As bad as today's Circuit Court ruling looks -- limiting the Federal Communications Commission's ability to regulate internet service providers and opening up the possibility that Comcast and other providers can apply different rules to different content -- there may be a way around it.

According to this post by Megan Tady from the Free Press "Save the Internet Coalition," the FCC opened itself up to this ruling through its own mistakes and failures:

The FCC has found itself in the ridiculous situation of attempting to regulate broadband without the authority to do so unless the agency takes strong and decisive action to “reclassify” the service under the Communications Act.

Here’s the deal: under the Bush FCC, the agency decided to classify and treat broadband Internet service providers the same as any Internet applications company like Facebook or Lexis-Nexis, placing broadband providers outside of the legal framework that traditionally applied to the companies that offer two-way communications services.

That’s the loophole that let Comcast wiggle out from under the agency’s thumb.

The FCC has it within its powers, Tady says, to make "an easy fix":

The FCC can change broadband back to a “communications service,” which is where it should have been in the first place. By reclassifying broadband, all of these questions about authority will fall away and the FCC can pick up where it left off – protecting the Internet for the public and bridging the digital divide.

The hope, she says, is that "this court decision will hopefully force the FCC to take action that will ultimately come back to haunt them."

That's the hope, anyway. Let's see if Barack Obama's FCC (pictured) is more willing to back American citizens than the Bush FCC.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Doggie diaries: The story of Rosie and Sophie Just another walk and another and another

The pups are liking these walks, though I am having some issues setting up a schedule so that I can run, work and get to the office. By the time I figure it out, the three-week moratorium on dogs in the back yard will be over.

It's not about independence; it's about the health of the planet

When Barack Obama proposed drilling for oil and natural gas off the East Coast, he not only played co-dependent to our national oil addiction, he endorsed a dangerous rhetorical trope.

His speech at Andrews Air Force Base focused on "energy security" and "independence," laudible-sounding goals that obscure the real dangers of our oil economy. It's not just that we are reliant on unstable regimes for oil, which leaves us vulnerable economically to unrest. The issue goes much deeper.

It's not "energy independence" we should be striving for, but independence from oil itself. Oil, as Peter Maass' fine book Crude World shows, is a corrupting influence on the world, encouraging kleptocracies in most nations with significant reserves and distorting the vision of those that need it, like us. It incites violence, whether full-scale wars or internecine strife.

And it is killing the planet. Drilling, even with new technologies, is horribly intrusive and will become more so as the oil we seek becomes more difficult to draw from the ground. And burning oil as fuel fouls the air, rots the ozone layer, poisons us and the rest of the planet, with the residue of car exhausts ending up in our acquifers.

Were we suddenly to find enough oil in Wyoming, the issue of importing from Saudi Arabia and Nigeria and other unsavory regimes would go away. We would have "energy independence" and "energy security" but we still would need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

The issue is one of public health and planetary health and we should be framing the debate this way.

Send me an e-mail.

• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

The (Marlins) gloves (don't) have it: Opening day post, No. 5

Nice inning so far. You have to like Jason Bay's hustle on the triple -- and the Marlins show why the team might be the worst fielding squad in the National League (two errors on pickoffs). Met 5, Marlins 1.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Good start to first start: Opening day post, No. 4

Johan Santana so far: 3 innings, 1 single, 1 strikeout, 45 pitches, 2 balls out of the infield. Nice.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Doggie diaries: The story of Rosie and Sophie An afternoon nap after an afternoon walk

We finally had our backyard regraded to address a flooding problem we've been dealing with -- parts of the yard would become lakes. And while that will be good in the long run, it makes for a bit of a hassle now because it means we can't let the dogs back there. So, that means we have to walk them and walk them frequently.

With the good weather we've had the last few days, that is not a problem -- except at midnight when it's a bit dark and foreboding. In fact, it's been nice, getting out for the trek around the neighborhood. Today we walked 2.4 miles -- a record for the dogs (Rosie, top; Sophie, bottom) -- and the pooches are now asleep and likely will be for quite some time.

That should give me some time to get some work done and watch the game (working from home).

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

David looks al-Wright: Opening day post, No. 3

One at bat does not a season make, but David Wright smashes a pitch down the right-field line and over the fence. After last year, that had to feel good. Score: 2-0 Mets.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Pitching, pitching, pitching: Opening day post, No. 2

An infield pop-up, a strikeout and an easy flyball -- Johan Santana looks good so far. The Mets are going to need to pitch like this every inning of every game to stay in this race.

No score as the Mets come to the plate in the bottom of the first.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Lineup contends for mediocrity: Opening day post, No. 1

They just announced the Mets lineup for opening day, and it is not a pretty one:

1. Alex Cora, SS
2. Luis Castillo, 2B
3. David Wright, 3B
4. Mike Jacobs, 1B
5. Jason Bay, LF
6. Garry Matthews, CF
7. Jeff Francouer, RF
8. Rod Barajas, C
9. Johan Santana, P

I know Cora and Matthews are supposed to be temporary fixes, but the fact that both are in the opening day lineup should dispel any optimism those of us rooting for this might have had. Cora is a career backup and Matthews -- his lone good year in the big leagues came under the influence of performance-enhancing drugs. Throw in Jacobs, Barajas and Catillo, and you can see why I think this team will be lucky to compete for third.

Division prediction: Phillies, Braves, Marlins, Mets, National. And that is sad, indeed.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Employment numbers are more a blip than a surge

I don't mean to be a downer, but the 163,000 jobs created last month -- which includes people working for the Census Bureau -- barely covers what is needed to offset the number of new workers entering the work force. That's just not good enough, given that we've lost about half a million jobs a month for the last 15 months.

We need a far more aggressive jobs plan, one that will create 750,000 to 1 million jobs a month for the next year to 18 months.

Anything less will leave too many people out of the economy.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Runner's diary, Friday

It is beautiful out, warm and sunny and only the faintest of breezes. Needless to say, I ran outside, gutting out four miles and feeling pretty good about a 10-mile week.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Letter to liberales

Another day, another disappointment for progressives (this time, oil drilling), another reason to stop pretending that the Obama administration is something that it's not.

 

Consider this an open letter to my liberal comrades, those who still believe that Barack Obama offers the kind of hope he promised during his campaign. He is better than the alternatives were, at least the major party candidates, but he is proving not to be a transformational president. In fact, he is nothing more than a milder, more liberal version of Bill Clinton, a member of the corporate status quo interested only in tinkering around the edge.

 

Liberal friends, as yourself these questions. Would you support a candidate who:

• expanded health coverage nominally by funnelling money to the insurance industry?
• signed an executive order endorsing a ban on the use of federal funds for abortions?
• expanded the war in Afghanistan and left much of the war in Iraq in place?
• opened off-shore areas to oil drilling?:
• supports the foolish notion that coal, one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet, can be made clean and green?
• defens the state secrets act, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition and other dubious, constitutionally suspect practices used in the war on terror?
• focused on budget cutting and deficit reduction when job creation demands a bigger stimulus?

 Would you support a candidate who, at nearly every turn, thumbs his nose at your core beliefs, who views your support as a given and takes you for granted? Should you?

 

You want to say "no," but you would be lying to yourself, your continued, unquestioning loyalty to the president regardless of his actions is proof of the lie. Yes, Obama is better than McCain, Palin, even Hillary Clinton, but that is not enough, should not be enough.

 

Core principles matter. We have to show the president and Congress what our core principles are and make it clear they have to respect them, take them seriously and start building policy based on our core principles and not those of the corporate order.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Dispatches: Fallen idols

Dispatches this week offers the saga of Dwight Gooden: From tragedy to farce -- a Met fan's thoughts.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.