Mr Obama - For our country, please don't choose Corzine

President-elect Obama used our governor at the latter stages of this campaign on the economic issue. We can all debate that as a wise strategy but now that he has won, it probably has no significance. But Barack Obama needs to understand what New Jersey residents both Democrat and Republican already know. Jon Corzine is a complete lightweight. He came into this state with a lot of promise due to his economic experience. And all we got was "I don't want to be Scrooge".

It highlighted his cowardice and lack of vision in a big way. We are stuck with him. Our country is not. President-elect Obama, while my instinct is to play Corzine up as a winner to get him out of New Jersey, my concern for the country in this difficult time is far more important. We need a heavy hitter. And Corzine is so much balsawood.

When Businesses are Failing... Raise the Minimum Wage?

Governor Corzine, I don't get it. According to the Courier Post Online, your reaction to the current financial crisis includes an increase of the minimum wage.

Among the proposals discussed:

Forming a syndicate of small banks and lenders to extend credit to small and mid-sized businesses and help homeowners fend off foreclosure.

Jump-starting infrastructure projects such as schools.

Luring businesses by touting New Jersey's real estate assets.

Raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.

Partnering with utility companies to create jobs in energy conservation.

I thought that when the economy is bad, we want to make it easier for businesses to survive. I can see the appeal of extending unemployment benefits, but giving people more money for the same work? Really? How exactly will that help?

Obama needs to remind Corzine that panels are the oldest Washington stunt!

From Newsday.com:

Gov. Jon Corzine says he'll convene a special panel to assess ongoing uncertainty in the national economy and its impact on New Jersey.

The economic round-table will occur Monday.

Corzine said he'll assemble business, labor and economic representatives from throughout the state. The goal is to develop an immediate action plan.

But I thought that this was the oldest Washington stunt in the book? Apparently, Obama's buddy and economic advisor Jon Corzine didn't get the memo.

Menendez economic plan - more of the same tripe

Robert Menendex has put his hat in the ring for amateur economist today. He has a three part plan to fix our economic problems. From the AP via amNewYork:

Menendez said three steps can help right away:

_ Help prevent foreclosures by enabling bankruptcy judges to modify loan terms so homeowners' primary residences are protected.

_ Create an emergency loan program to help jump-start small businesses having trouble finding credit.

_ Offer a second economic stimulus package to create jobs and prevent cuts in essential services by funding infrastructure projects and some form of unemployment insurance extension.

Let's analyse the Senator's plan. His first pillar is to extend foreclosures on bad loans. Does he not get the the toxic balance sheets caused by these loans is what is dragging down many firms? Did they not teach him any basics when he joined the Senate Banking Committee? Oh, that's right. He learned how to get money from the firms that caused this problem-Fannie and Freddie ($31,250). These bad loans need to be purged from the system. I am sorry that some people will be hurt and if he wants to help them, he should provide transition funding to find a rental place to live.

His emergency loan program makes a bit more sense if money is completely dried up for small business. I am not sure that is the case. I have seen no evidence that money was not available for sound business loans. But at least this is a good example of anticipatory planning and worthy.

His third example is to stimulate the economy through make-work jobs and government handouts. It reminds me of a recent road project near my house. The State of New Jersey and the Federal government teamed up to spend close to 21.5 million dollars to create a road that makes life slightly easiers for truckers at a rest stop near the turnpike and created a traffic jam by adding a jug handle. The project was frankly unneeded and unneccesary.

Obama's Supporters Think The Soprano State's Leaders Are Doing A Great Job

Want Yet Another Reason not to vote for an Obama-nation? How about the fact that his backers think New Jersey legislators are to be commended?

N.J. eco-group backs Obama, gives lawmakers high marks
2 senators, 8 congressmen get perfect scores

A state environmental advocacy group yesterday announced its endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for president and gave New Jersey's two U.S. senators and eight of its 13 congressmen perfect scores for their environmental records.

Environment New Jersey based its report card on 10 votes between January 2007 and February 2008 that involved combating global warming, promoting clean energy, protecting air and water, and opposing offshore drilling, Executive Director Dena Mottola Jaborska said at a Statehouse news conference.

So if you're interested in the kinds of things that make Obama friends, it's business-unfriendly government. And half-measures aren't enough. You have to really hate business. For example:

Erica Elliott, Garrett's [Rep. Scott Garrett (R-5th Dist.)] spokeswoman, called the congressman's poor marks "an unfair representation," and issued a list of his environmentally-oriented advocacy. It includes his introduction of a bill to expand the National Wallkill Wildlife Refuge in Sussex, and his support of getting a toxic waste site in Ringwood re-listed on the Superfund National Priorities List.

Scott, of course, scored the lowest in the state, which may be good or bad, but I certainly can't tell from the negative picture painted by this environmentalist group. After all, look at who they like:

Voting environmentally friendly 100 percent of the time were U.S. Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, both Democrats, and Reps. Frank LoBiondo (R-2nd Dist.), Chris Smith (R-4th Dist.), Robert Andrews (D-1st Dist.), Frank Pallone (D-6th Dist.), Bill Pascrell (D-8th Dist.), Steve Rothman (D-9th Dist.), Rush Holt (D-12th Dist.) and Albio Sires (D-13th Dist.).

80% or them are Democrats, of course, including some of our worst, and I have to suspect that LoBiondo and Smith are RINOs; especially when you consider who also scored low alongside Rep. Garrett: Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-11th Dist.), and Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-7th Dist.). You don't get a Democrat until you tie him with another Republican for a 69% score. Clearly "bipartisan":

"Being green in the Garden State is a bipartisan issue and we applaud our delegation's environmental heroes, especially the leadership from Sen. Menendez and Sen. Lautenberg," Mottola Jaborska said.

Sounds like a lot of Jaborska to me.

Bar Stool Economics

After reading Dennis's post (based on this Powerline post), I saw this great post on Living Jersey about bar-stool economics.

The rich guy must have gone to Pennsylvania.

Democrats Don't Really Believe in Conservation

Suppose you have a limited resource. More is available, but you'd have to take measures that have have a risk (though only a risk) of ill effects to get it. It would take some time for the good effects to occur -- the world doesn't react instantaneously to a policy change -- but everyone in your state depends on it, and currently available alternatives are minimal and have not shown signs of increasing radically.

If you're a New Jersey Democrat and the resource is oil, you don't care: the stuff is staying where it is.

Drilling also would yield little oil, take at least a decade to bear fruit and do nothing to bring down gasoline prices, said U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J.

"It makes little or no sense to most of us to be drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf anywhere, but particularly in the Atlantic and the mid-Atlantic. ... in specific," Gov. Jon S. Corzine said. "I think it's a nonstarter strategy."

"What we need to do is be moving to alternative energies and most importantly, conservation," he said.

But oil isn't the only precious resource that could be extracted from New Jersey. Remember, the second speaker here is the same Governor Corzine who wanted to spend a dozen years octupling our tolls. (A gallon of gas would cost $32 if we increased its prices proportionally.) That would have taken a decade to extract the money from us, it would have damaging effects on our economic climate, and it would have done nothing to bring down the price of government.

Yet "conservation" of this precious and limited resource, our money, is the last thing on their minds.

And consider: speculation helps drive the price of gasoline. Drilling now could shift markets. The speculation that comes from drilling would help New Jersey. But speculation about tax increases would hurt New Jersey by driving business and people away. You only have to look one state over to see proof, where a pro-business governor is helping a neighboring state drain our people and our jobs.

So yes, Democrats and Republicans alike, on the demand side, let's conserve both oil and money. Drive less (especially in gas guzzlers if you don't need them) and spend less (especially in cases where there's no immediate social benefit). And on the supply side, let's make more of each, oil and money, available for the public to use.

Corzine kneejerk rejection of drilling!

From NJ.com:

"I think it will only reinforce the instincts of New Jersey's blue-leaning independents to more solidly get into that camp," Corzine said. "I think New Jersey will be solidly blue this fall."

The Democratic governor spoke on a conference call with two others, North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley and Florida Sen. Bob Graham, to bash McCain's proposal as a "flip-flop" and a "cave-in" to President Bush's policies. Bush today urged Congress to lift the long-standing offshore drilling ban, following McCain's statements this week that allowing each state to decide on drilling could help bring relief as gas prices surpass $4 a gallon.

So Corzine gets a few of his liberal friends together and out of hand dismisses John McCain's proposals to change our energy independence. He pretends that New Jersey is in play in this election. That is a silly joke. New Jersey will vote for the politician who clearly advertises that he will raise taxes every time.
and we know which one that happens to be. Why didn't he have three governors on the call instead of two...

Crist was among the Republicans expressing support for Sen. John McCain's call for lifting the federal moratorium along the Outer Continental Shelf and giving states a share of petroleum revenues as an incentive for them to allow oil and gas drilling off their coasts.

"We have to be sympathetic to the pocketbooks of the people of Florida and what they're paying at the pump for gas, and balance that with: Is there any way that our state might be able to contribute in terms of resources to have greater supply and therefore lower prices?" said Crist, who has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate.

"If that's possible, through good technology or whatever it might be, I think an open-minded person understands that we ought to at least study it."

So while Corzine reflexively says no, the governor of Florida (not the senator from Florida who Corzine trotted out to pretend he was in charge) showed that he has an open mind both to the voters and to change in technology. No one wants spoiled beaches. New Jersey gets them just be being in close proximity to the trash dump that is often New York. But what if China decided to start drilling 90 miles off the New Jersey coast? Seem improbable? That is what is happening to Florida. And who would you trust to drill for oil and take care of the beaches, China or the US?

Corzine also shows why he knows nothing about energy commodities.

Corzine said allowing domestic drilling has "nothing to do with the price of gas today, next month, next year or even five years from now."

To call Corzine a foolish man is to be too kind by half. These prices made it to where they are based on oil speculation. Even the Saudis recently said that fundamentals do not justify the price of oil right now. What does? It is clearly speculation. And what fuels this speculation? One thing is that the US can be relied on to ignore its own energy reserves and has no coherent energy policy. Can't build refineries, can't drill for oil, can't burn coal, can't have nuclear energy, can't can't can't. And it is Corzine and limousine liberals like him who are responsible.

If this country made a strong statement that we will:

1. Commence exploration projects immediately in Anwar and promising areas off our coasts
2. Start building refineries again
3. Advance clean coal burning technologies for natural gas
4. Look to better alternative fuels instead of BURNING OUR FOOD!!!!!

The markets would react and the price will come down. Energy speculators are laughing all the way to the bank when fools like Corzine get up and spew their anti-citizen rhetoric. But then, the governor doesn't have to pay his gas bill, does he.

Why Business is Fleeing the State

It's like watching a car wreck in slow motion.

Yep. And he (Paul Mulshine) gives a very nice summary of how the wheels have been coming off.

Moving companies confirm - NJ is a big loser

In an article in the Home News Tribune, the two largest moving companies examined the pattern of inbound versus outbound migration in various states. And of course, New Jersey was notable:

Data from two moving companies provide "on the ground" snapshot certifications of the more comprehensive Census Bureau data. First is the annual interstate "migration study" of United Van Lines, the nation's largest carrier. Its report tracks the states where its customers moved from and moved to. New Jersey was the third-ranking "high outbound" state in the survey. Of the total United Van Lines' interstate movements that took place in New Jersey in 2007, 61 percent were outbound compared to 39 percent inbound.

The Garden State ranked third in outbound percentage behind economically challenged Michigan (67.8 percent outbound), which ranked No. 1. Michigan has been devastated by a collapsing industrial/automobile economy. We also trailed weather-challenged North Dakota (67.2 percent outbound). Second-ranking North Dakota has the lowest average annual temperature (42.2 degrees) in the lower 48 states. In contrast, New Jersey's weather has been mild and free of extremes, and its economy had been growing modestly, yet the outflow continued apace.

Wow! We are now being compared to Michigan. But I am not that surprised. Michigan has a liberal Governor who in the midst of the largest outbound migration in her state's history, saw nothing wrong with massive tax and spending hikes. Sound familiar? The sad thing about Michigan is that so many of the productive people in the state have left, they have virtually no hope of breaking out of this cycle.

New Jersey is in much the same boat. It seems that the Governor and legislature of this state are so busy handing out taxpayer money, they are forgetting the once all the productive people leave, they won't be able to pay for their largesse anymore. Of course, it isn't all good news for the moving companies:

In any case, the two moving companies have a good customer in New Jersey, although they have to keep shipping empty moving vans into the state in order to move New Jerseyans out. This is just the opposite of the growing stacks of empty cargo containers in the Port Newark area, where far more cargo containers with goods flow into New Jersey than flow out. Thus, our cargo movements have an interesting lack of symmetry with our household goods movements.

Just remember fellow citizen-there is a empty container with your name on it just waiting for you to say enough is enough. And for our legislators, keep on taxin' so the moving companies can keep on truckin'.

Read the article here.

Megan McArdle's Article, "Tax Me More"

In a relatively tight space, just 1,150 words, Megan McArdle at The Atlantic pretty much shreds the argument that people want to have higher taxes. An excerpt:

But most people do not appear to think that the government (or anyone else) has a morally salient better use for their money than they do; otherwise, they would give that money to the government (which will take it even if there is no "tax me more" fund) or charity. Perhaps you'll argue that people's norms about fairness are so strong that they will not give away their money unless other people do. My response would be to ask: is the unfairness of your paying more than other similarly affluent people greater or smaller than the distributional unfairness that you want the government to rectify? Nor is it plausible to believe that you can, by withholding your extra contribution, force other people to kick into the kitty; your contribution is a drop in the budget of any political entity to which you belong.

[Gotcha! You cry. My money alone won't make a difference! Sorry, but if that were true then you'd be morally justified in cheating on your taxes. The small sum you send them is spent on something you presumably think we need more of.]

Or you might argue that since money is a positional good, it's not reasonable to ask you to reduce your income unless everyone else at the same level does, too. So now positional goods races are an acceptable way to spend your life? So important that they should override your moral concerns about distributional justice?

Perhaps you claim that you don't want to send the government extra money because God knows what they'll spend it on. Well, welcome to the libertarian movement. Your subscription to Reason should arrive in four to six weeks.

Read the whole thing.