After months of percolating under the political radar, the U.S. Senate race in New Jersey has finally begun to take shape.

So now, it appears, we are to believe that the Legislature has more wisdom, more fairness, than the people of the state of New Jersey.

That only the state’s senators and assemblymembers can be trusted to make the right decisions, and that their collective decisions should outweigh those of the people.

Please.

On the same day Democrats began their push to legalize gay marriage in New Jersey; Gov. Chris Christie upended their plan, calling instead for the public to vote on the issue this November. And then Christie, who also said he would veto any gay marriage bill that came before him, also promised he would abide by the public’s decision.

“I think that this is not an issue that should rest solely in my hands, in the hands of the Senate President, or in the hands of the Speaker or the other 118 members of the Legislature,” Christie said. “Let’s let the people of New Jersey decide what is right for the state. Let’s put the question of same-sex marriage on the ballot this fall, in the hands of the people, at the time where the most people will be voting, in the presidential election year”.


Now, there’s a lot of talk about how no civil rights legislation should be left up to the public.
Our guess is that if supporters were confident it would pass, they would be thrilled with Christie’s announcement.

Instead, Democrats vow that they will never support putting the vote to a public referendum.

And so we ask, where does that leave supporters of gay marriage?

Christie has already promised to veto the legislation.  While sponsors might have enough votes to pass one or both houses of the Legislature, they don’t have enough to sustain a veto override.

So instead, there will be another campaign at the Statehouse, more passionate testimony, more demonstrations pro and con – and in the end, nothing will change.

Where, if the vote was put to the public, it could well result in a change.  Current polls show a majority of New Jerseyans – 53% -- support gay marriage. The public may vote in favor of gay marriage – yet Christie is willing to accept the wisdom of the people, even if it goes against his personal beliefs.  Why aren’t Democrats?

Are Democrats trying to tell us that they, and only they, can be counted on to do the right thing for the people of New Jersey?

The same people, by the way, who just voted them into office? Who kept them in the majority for another two years?

Are Democrats trying to say that they’ll accept our votes when we put them into office, but don’t think we can make the right decision on an issue such as gay marriage?  

Are they saying they don’t trust us?

And if that’s the case, what does that say about what they really think about the people who voted them in, in the first place?

Jan. 23, 2012

Now this would be one interesting feud to watch. Heck, given the high profile of each, it could be one of the most entertaining sideshows in this political year.

For who expected former Alaska Gov. Sarah Pallin to unload on Gov. Chris Christie Monday night, taking Christie to task for calling former Speaker Newt Gingrich an "embarassment," and countering that by saying that Christie embarasses the Republican Party too.

Not to mention saying that Christie got his "panties in a wad" over the fact that Mitt Romney lost the South Carolina primary to Gingrich.

From the Ledger:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called out Gov. Chris Christie today saying he made a "rookie mistake" when criticizing Republican presidential candidate New Gingrich over the weekend.
"You know, sometimes if your candidate loses in just one step along this path, as was the case when (Mitt )Romney lost to Newt the other night, and of course, Romney is Chris Christie’s guy," Palin said in an interview on Fox Business News.

Now, we should note that of course, Christie is a Romney supporter. And while Palin hasn't officially endorsed anyone publicly, her husband Todd did endorse Gingrich.  So maybe this is all about the presidential race in 2012. Or maybe, just maybe, this is about two potential rivals for 2016.

Either way, we can't wait to see who says what next.

"That has been the case every step of the way," Goldstein said. "Since Governor Christie took office, his administration has treated us with warmth and responsiveness. Yes is yes, no is no, and we’ll get back to you means they get back to you faster than you thought, usually with invaluable help. " 


What that means is that even if Christie rejects the gay marriage bill, should it pass the Legislature, it will be much harder for his critics to paint the governor as a reactionary on the issue of gay rights.

(You know what wouldn't surprise us? If Christie trumps his critics again, and agrees to put the gay marriage question as a referendum on the ballot and let the voters decide, with the agreement up front that the Legislature and the governor will abide by what the public decides. )

During his "Meet the Press" appearance, Christie talked alot about how President Barack Obama and  former Speaker Newt Gingrich had no executive experience -- and therefore, had no knowledge of how to wield executive power.

With these appointments, Christie once again showed that he knows exactly what he's doing.

“We had a bad week as a campaign and a bad result last night,” Christie said. “So, you pick yourself up, you dust yourself off, and you get to Florida, and you fight. And I still believe Governor Romney is going to win in Florida on the 31st, and he’s going to return to Florida in August as the Republican nominee.”

His call for a 10% across the board tax cut became the defining message of his State of the State speech, and almost immediately put Democrats on the defensive.

Where Democrats were hoping to paint Christie as someone who cares only about the rich, Christie trumped them with calling for tax cuts for everybody.

Which message do you think will play better in New Jersey: tax cuts for all, or no tax cuts and higher taxes on millionaires?

Exactly.

Democrats have already outlined the basis of their attacks against Christie:  that his tax cuts once again coddle the rich and are unfair to the poor and middle class.

Democrats cite that Christie’s proposed tax cut would only amount to about $45 for a person earning $30,000, $80 for a person earning $50,000, $275 for a person earning $100,000, and $7,265 for a person earning $1 million.

Putting aside the fact that those who earn more pay more in taxes, the Democrats’ argument ignores a basic tent: Whether you are making $30,000, $50,000, $100,000 or $1 million, you would much rather have that extra money in your pocket, than give it to government to spend.

Christie didn’t say Tuesday how he plans to cover the estimated $1 billion the tax cut would cost the Treasury, and Democrats are already warning darkly that the funds could come from school aid, thus causing property taxes to rise.

But Christie is too smart a politician to propose cutting income taxes while watching property taxes increase – especially not after the Star Ledger found that thanks to the 2% cap and other reforms Christie signed, property tax increases slowed to just 2.4% last year.

Christie won’t jeopardize that for a tax cut – not heading into his re-election year.

We do, however, remember that Christie has said that his administration would be coming out with a new school funding formula this year, so it’s possible that there will be some savings there.

One thing’s for sure: Christie wouldn’t have proposed a tax cut if he didn’t already know exactly how he would pay for it.

This isn’t like Christie Whitman in 1993.  Back then, Whitman was a reluctant tax cut warrior.  Campaign insiders will tell you that Whitman didn’t initially embrace her signature 30% tax cut; she was talked into it after Ed Rollins came on board and after polls showed her 20 points down to then-Gov. Jim Florio.

But it was that tax cut that carried Whitman over the top in ’93, because voters – i.e., taxpayers – like the idea of keeping more of their own money, whether it’s $45, $80, $275 or $7,265.

And that’s why the Democrats’ argument will fall flat.

In his speech, Christie also checked Democrat arguments that he is a mean-spirited guy.  He called for fully restoring the earned income tax credit, which benefits the poor, repeated his call for education reform and school vouchers, to help students in failing districts, and called for mandatory treatment for drug offenders, not jail.

It was here that the former tough guy prosecutor used some of his most eloquent language:

“I propose mandatory treatment for every non-violent offender with a drug abuse problem in New Jersey, not just a select few. It will send a clear message to those who have fallen victim to the disease of drug abuse – we want to help you, not throw you away. We will require you to get treatment. Your life has value. Every one of God’s creations can be redeemed. Everyone deserves a second chance.”

Immediately after the speech, there was plenty of talk about how Christie was playing to a national audience. That he was lining himself up to be Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate.

And that may be.

But from our perspective, it seemed more that Christie – who knows how to read a political chessboard as well as anyone who has ever held the office – saw that Democrats were trying to box him into a corner. Saw that they were trying to set the agenda, and push policies and proposals that they hoped would put him in a negative light, whether he’s running in 2012, or 2013.

And rather than play their game, Christie took himself out of their box, and put the Democrats in one of their own. Are they for cutting taxes, or raising them? Reforming education, or defending the status quo?  
New Jersey doesn’t have to think back very long to remember a Trenton that was more interested in spending the taxpayers’ money, than coming up with ways to save it.

With one passage in a speech, Christie framed the debate in New Jersey that will likely carry over in both 2012, and 2013. Do New Jerseyans want a smaller government and less taxes, or a larger government with expanded services and higher taxes?

New Jerseyans answered that question once in 2009.  Christie is betting that they haven’t changed their minds much since.

The Democrats have announced that they plan to challenge Christie on several fronts, including gay marriage, raising the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $8.50, and that old standby, reinstituting the millionaire’s tax.

The New Year has arrived and with it comes, once again, the hope of good things happening in the 12 months that lie ahead. Being a “millennium baby,” this is the year you will turn 12 – in fact in just a few months. You are moving from being a little boy into adolescence that will lead to your becoming a young man. It is a time of transition for you.

One former employee in New York attempted to organize a similar event through an e-mail chain, a source familiar with the matter said. Once the party was suggested, at least 10 people responded with: "Is Jon Corzine going to pay for it?"

Meanwhile, Corzine, who is said to be looking for office space in Manhattan, is facing numerous lawsuits, including a class-action suit by Montana famers, as well as a suit by former employees that has been combined with other suits, including one by the Philadelphia pension board.

But the most curious piece of Corzine news is that just before the firm went bankrupt, Vanity Fair reports that  Corzine and his wife were shopping for a chateau in the south of France.

Seriously? A chateau in south France?

Now, we all know that Corzine could be poltiically tone deaf.  But this shows Corzine's deaf ear extended far beyond the poltiical realm.

Scary, almost.

The Vanity Fair article hints that what was driving Corzine all along was his need for redemption:

As federal authorities searched for the brokerage house’s more than $1 billion in missing customer money, friends and former associates of Corzine weighed in on the ways his personal quirks informed his management style. “On this, Jon became a zealot,” one person says of Corzine’s European-debt trades. “He managed the process soup to nuts,” says a former employee. “He knew every number back and forth. He’d talk to the accountants and the board. He’s not a detail-oriented guy, but on this he knew every detail.”

“I think he is the most competitive guy in the world,” says a person who was close to him at MF Global, explaining why Corzine took the job in the first place—despite prime opportunities both on Wall Street and in Washington, where he was frequently invoked as a possible Treasury-secretary successor to Timothy Geithner. “He knows there are people out there who don’t like him, and he wants to prove them wrong. He’s very focused on reputation and how he’s perceived. He wants to be perceived as a winner, and he will do what it takes to get there.” Says a former colleague, “He wanted to be in the game, to prove he was back, to prove he was the man.”

“There are a lot of us who consider Jon to be a friend and mentor,” says a former Goldmanite. “That group is horrified [by the scandal].” He continues: “There is another group who thinks this is par for the course.”

“At first I thought, Oh, Jon must be crushed,” says one person who knows him well. “It’s not like he was doing this [playing the accounting games] to earn a big bonus. But he needed to feed his ego that he would be perceived as being successful. And there are lot of people who are paying a much higher price than he is.”

Maybe that helps explains why Corzine is still shopping for space on Wall Street.  Maybe he's still hoping for that comeback. Maybe he's hoping to prove a point.

Whatever. It just all seems very sad.  Especially for those farmers, ranchers and investors whose life-savings are at risk, and those MF Global employees who are out of a job.

As for Corzine and his (we assume) lost chateau, not so much. 

"Let's go break into the kitchen in the dining hall at college because we smell that they are baking doughnuts for the next morning," he recalled Mary Pat saying. "So let's sneak in and steal some of the doughnuts now."

Who knew that a future U.S. attorney and governor would find true love purloining doughnutsy?

While educators have been working to bring about technology in the classroom through the use of devices such as smart boards and interactive learning, the assessment of all that learning is often put into the same paper-based grade-books that were used when most of us were still in school. As the New Jersey Department of Education and more than  650 public school districts move to more comprehensive student and staff measurement models, the need for valid electronic classroom-level data is critically important.  Unfortunately, the integration of electronic classroom grading systems has a long way to go before classroom-based formative and summative scoring can be utilized to comprehensively measure achievement.

The investigation was closed only this past fall, with no charges filed.

But the day this story broke, Menendez issued a statement denying that he had anything but the most righteous reasons for blocking Shwartz's nomination.

From the Star Ledger: