Senator Barbara Buono

What are the qualities we should look for in our elected leaders? Certainly intelligence, compassion, the ability to deal with setbacks, and a sense of fairness top that list.


One of our legislators who scores high marks in all those categories is Senator Barbara Buono. I spoke with her yesterday on a number of issues including the power of the governor, the art of compromise, the level of civil discourse in the state, the reaction to unlimited funding of elections by corporations, the environment, ways to reinstate the millionaire's tax, and the prognosis for our urban areas, specifically Camden - the home of the South Jersey Democratic bosses. We also talked briefly about the possibility of the Senator moving down the hall in the State House to the Governor's office in 2013.

Barbara Buono is the antithesis of the persona that Chris Christie presents to the public.  She cares about the middle class and poor. She cares about the environment. She advocates for those groups that don't have expensive lobbyists on State Street. Even when she vehemently disagrees with her colleagues, she respects them as people and she respects their office, and doesn't use derogatory terms like "idiot" or "jerk."

Whether or not she runs for governor next year, Senator Buono reflects a side of New Jersey that puts our state in a positive light. That's the face of New Jersey that I'd like to see become the norm. 

The Difference Between Democrats and Republicans

One of the signature accomplishments of the still-young session of the New Jersey legislative session has been the passage of a bill to ensure equal rights for married couples. State Senate President Stephen Sweeney and General Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver assigned the bill number as S-1 and A-1, respectively, to emphasize the significance of this historic measure.

Yet, one of the main objections from the Republicans during the debate was that very fact. They whined that with the higher-than-average unemployment rate under the Christie administration, the legislature should not have been “wasting” its time on marriage equality, but instead should have put “jobs” (their shorthand for tax breaks for millionaires) at the top of the agenda.

Contrast this action in the Garden State’s Democratically-controlled legislature to that of a Republican-controlled legislature across the river in Pennsylvania. What do you think is receiving priority treatment there? It’s a GOP-sponsored voter-suppression bill that has the support of their Tea Party fellow traveler Governor Tom Corbett. Despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of wholesale voter fraud, the GOP is working to deny the vote to those classes of people who don’t have proper photo ID (and typically vote Democratic). This legislation is being fast-tracked to be in place in time to influence the 2012 presidential election. So I guess, by GOP logic, voter suppression is more important than creating jobs in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania GOP will pass legislation that will inevitably embroil the state in expensive lawsuits while the New Jersey Democrats will continue to work to ensure equal rights.

I often disagree with politicians from both parties, but this example shows the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. Ensuring rights vs. suppressing rights.

New Jersey, Delaware to Merge

In a surprise move today, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie announced a merger between New Jersey and Delaware. The new state will be called "New Jersey."

"It makes a lot of sense", Christie said. "It has always bothered me that New Jersey had an odd number of counties, and by adding Delaware's three counties to the state, we now have a nice even 24, which coincidentally is the same as the name of my favorite television program."

In a related move, Christie announced that his alma mater, the University of Delaware, will be merged into Rowan University. Attorney Philip A. Norcross has been named President of the academic institution. When questioned about this action, Christie replied, "It just makes sense. This gives Rowan a Division I football team and nobody ever heard of a blue hen, anyway."

When told that Delaware Governor Jack Markell strenuously objected to the merger of the two states, and that the matter should be brought to the people, Christie replied, "He's an idiot. Someone should take a bat to him."

America: MIA

The so-called Blunt Amendment went down in defeat. That’s a good thing, but we should temper our celebration.

The Blunt Amendment would have allowed employers to deny coverage to workers for any medical procedure that the employer unilaterally found morally objectionable. The bill was aimed against women (and their male partners); its objective was to deny birth control coverage.

Although the defeat of this draconian rule was welcome news, keep in mind that there were 48 votes in favor of the rule, in a Senate that consists mostly of white fundamentalist males.

Today’s vote is just one example why this is not the America I grew up in. In today’s America, a minority party whose philosophy is based on selfishness and greed has a stranglehold over the functioning of government. And the majority party, while not as mean-spirited as the minority, is not much better. 

On Monday, the House of Representatives voted almost unanimously to outlaw peaceful protests in certain areas when a high-profile personality is present. This is an America where commerce and the false assertion of national security take priority over privacy. This is an America where the holy grail of our Constitution, separation of church and state, is being chipped away. This is an America where there is an unholy alliance between the robber barons of Wall Street and the whores in our government.

So celebrate the defeat of one misguided amendment. But don’t celebrate victory. We have a long way to go to resurrect the America that our Founding Fathers fought for and died for.

Christie's Conundrum

I have no doubt that Governor Chris Christie will veto the marriage equality bill that passed in both houses of the New Jersey legislature. After all, no matter what you think of him, he follows up on his public pronouncements, and admitting that he made a mistake is an anathema to him.

Christie looks at everything through a political lens, regardless of the impact on the citizens of New Jersey. As Garden State Equality’s Steven Goldstein put it, “He won’t veto the bill because he’s anti-gay.  He’ll veto the bill because the 2016 South Carolina Republican Presidential primary electorate is anti-gay.”

Being the shrewd politician that he is, Christie has aligned his position with what he must think is a “win-win” situation.

First, he knows he won’t get the Vice Presidential nomination if Mitt Romney, who he supports, wins the Republican race. Both Christie and Romney are from  the Mean-Spirited-but-Relatively-Sane wing of the Republican party, and the GOP being the “big tent” party that it is, would have to balance the ticket with someone from the Mean-Spirited-but-Really-Crazy wing or the Fundamentalist Christian Jihadist wing. But Christie is still hedging his bets.

If Romney pulls an upset and defeats Barack Obama, Christie will be appointed Attorney General. While his tenure as US Attorney is unblemished by success, Christie figures he would have an easy time being confirmed by a Democratic but cowardly Senate, given that he would come across as “not as bad as Alberto Gonzalez.” And if Romney loses, the influence of the Mean-Spirited-but-Really-Crazy wing is diminished, setting up Christie as the front-runner for the nomination in 2016.

But Christie is no dummy. He’s got a conundrum to deal with. He knows that he’s on the wrong side of history with his stance on marriage equality. And he knows that the country’s attitude is changing. As younger generations become more politically influential and the older generations die off, the support for same-sex marriage will increase. And while a generational change takes more than four years, this has got to be part of Christie’s calculus.

Part of Christie’s appeal is his simplistic solutions to complex problems. So he’ll probably stand by his word and veto the marriage equality bill. But down the road, he may pull a Steve Sweeney and say he regretted that decision, especially after the legislature overrides his veto.

It’s just too bad that he’s loath to do the right thing from the outset.

Blunt – adj \ˈblənt\ : Not sharp

You have to admit. Republicans are adept at coming up with crazy solutions to today’s problems. Whether it’s Chris Christie cancelling a job-creating railroad tunnel leaving taxpayers with a billion dollar hole in the ground or Newt Gingrich telling elementary school kids to take time away from their studies and family to do janitorial work, Republican ideas put The Onion to shame.

Now it’s Missouri GOP Senator Roy Blunt who’s suggesting that we undermine the core principle of medical insurance by allowing any employer to deny any coverage that the employer has objection to. So an employer who is a fitness nut could opt out of providing insurance to his overweight employees. An employer could deny coverage for lung cancer, stating that smoking is a choice – ignoring the fact that non-smokers also get lung cancer. And a hyper-religious employer could opt out of providing mental health care if he believes prayer is a better solution.

The whole idea of insurance is a shared risk pool, and if a cafeteria plan is offered, the cost of coverage for individual diseases would skyrocket. Of course, no one knows what ailments will be suffered down the line, so Blunt’s plan would be functionally equivalent to no health insurance at all, in many cases. But since premiums are being paid, Blunt’s scheme would be a windfall to the insurance companies.

Blunt’s preposterous proposal takes the focus away from the GOP’s war on women. It moves the focus away from insurance for contraception by enabling denial of coverage for arbitrary aspects of medical care. Of course, the best solution to the soaring cost of medical services is a single-payer system like Medicare for all, but eliminating the insurance middle man is an anathema to both parties, who receive tons of political contributions from the medical-industrial complex.

So Blunt wins the Crazy GOP Idea of the Week Award this week. Even though his bill will never see the light of day, I’m sure the GOP will come up with another whopper next week.

Resuming the Madness

After a 34-year hiatus, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a license for the construction of the first new nuclear reactor in the United States since before the Three Mile Island catastrophe. Two reactors will be constructed at a stated cost to ratepayers of $14 billion near Augusta, Georgia, the second largest metropolitan area in the state with a population of over a half million, plus another 30,000 troops stationed in nearby Fort Gordon. In addition to the cost to the Southern Company’s ratepayers, the construction is backed by an $8.3 billion federal loan guarantee paid for by you and me.

Proponents of nuclear power contend that it is safer than it has ever been. They say that a Fukushima-type disaster cannot happen here because we don’t have simultaneous typhoons and earthquakes. But the bottom line is that no man-made system is foolproof. Consider, for example, an area where safety is paramount and large sums of money are spent on continuous improvement: commercial aviation. Air travel is safer than ever, but tell that to the 50 people who perished in Colgan Air Flight 3407 three years ago. Tragic for sure, but other than to the families of those who perished, there has been no lasting effect.

The impact of nuclear accidents, however, lingers for generations.  The area around the Chernobyl plant is uninhabitable 26 years after that accident and will be so for the foreseeable future. No doubt, the same will be true for the environs of the Japan disaster. But that’s not the only legacy of nuclear power.

Today, the United States has no comprehensive plan for the disposal of waste products from commercial power reactors. Tons of highly radioactive detritus are generated each year, most of which is stored on-site – a tempting target for terrorists. This is just another problem that we are handing down to future generations.

A more sane and rational approach would be to divert those billions of dollars to clean, renewable energy. Solar power is cost-competitive with nuclear, and with some investment wind power is not far behind. Any accident at a renewable-energy facility will not linger for generations as it would for nuclear.

So if you’re planning on relocating to eastern Georgia, here’s a map with a 50-mile radius circle around the new plant. That’s the distance that the US Government recommended for evacuation after the Fukushima disaster. Maybe such an accident will never happen here. But if it does, the costs in lives, health, relocation, and economic losses will be overwhelming.