David Rebovich

by David P. Rebovich

It's called the "six year itch." Voters look at a President in his second term and may think about unfulfilled promises, platitudes and stale arguments, and conclude that their national government needs to be shook up. Even some of the President's own partisans may have lost their enthusiasm for him and not turn out on Election Day. The opposition party and its candidates can get a boost from cumulative criticisms of the party in power and from some feisty presidential hopefuls who are making a case for change. Often he result is that Presidents see their party lose lots of seats in the House of Representatives, and some in the Senate, in the midterm elections in their sixth year in office.

As Charlie Cook of the NATIONAL JOURNAL recently reminded his many readers, Presidents Eisenhower, Johnson and Ford (who was finishing Nixon's second term) saw their parties lose 48, 47, and 48 seats respectively in the House in the elections in their sixth year in office. Voters must have had pretty big itches to scratch in those years. However, Reagan's Republicans and Clinton's Democrats were spared from such discontent in their second terms. But it is worth noting that in all of these cases, the approval ratings of the second term presidents were 48 percent or higher. Ike's was 52 percent and LBJ's a solid 56 percent, but several incumbent congressmen in their parties were still swept out of office.

Which brings us to President George W. Bush and the prospects of his fellow Republicans to hold onto their House and Senate seats this November. If the poll numbers of the President are any indication, the GOP should be worried about its ability to retain majorities in both chambers of Congress. According to a just published AP-Ipsos Poll, Bush's approval rating is 37 percent. This figure reflects an 8 percent decline among Republicans who believe that the President is doing an adequate job. Only 36 percent of those surveyed approve of the way Bush is dealing with domestic issues. 43 percent approve of his foreign and anti-terrorism policies. And 40 percent believe he is handling the in War in Iraq acceptably.

Those are dreadful numbers by any standard this side of Richard Nixon. The Republican-controlled Congress is not doing any better. The AP-Ipsos Poll shows that two-thirds of Americans disapprove of that branch's performance. Even 53 percent of self-identified Republicans do not give Congress a positive rating. This figure could mean that some Republicans may not bother to vote this fall. And the poor approval ratings of both President Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress can energize Democratic challengers and help legitimize their claim that the nation wants and needs change in Washington.

Democrats running for the House and Senate will argue that they should be elected to check an out-of-touch, incompetent President and to replace Republicans in Congress who have supported the Bush Administration's unpopular domestic and foreign policies. It's no mystery that from now to November Democrats will harp on such matters as the War in Iraq, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, high energy costs, port security and homeland security generally, the confusing new prescription drug programs, the need to shore up social security, cuts in education and college student loan programs, immigration problems, the big budget deficit, government ethics, and the makeup of the new Supreme Court.

Many Americans are concerned, and some are very angry, about these issues. And few folks have much sympathy for Congress in all of this. In fact, for decades surveys have shown that the institution itself is not popular with Americans. It is thought to be chock full of professional politicians who pay more attention to interest groups and lobbyists than to average citizens. Congress is also regarded as slow acting, favoring posturing and debate over action on issues. Social security reform? Affordable health care? Energy independence? They've been discussed forever.

If Americans don't especially like Congress as an institution, they certainly do seem to like their own representatives. Typically more than 90 percent of incumbents are reelected to the House. Incumbents often run district-oriented campaigns that focus on what they have done for the folks back home, while conveniently blaming their colleagues, collectively, for the failure to enact major policies or to check an unpopular president. This simple formula is by no means fool-proof. Witness the losses suffered by incumbents in those "six year itch" elections listed above.

Will Americans, and New Jerseyans especially, have a big enough itch this year to make significant changes in Congress and give the Democrats a majority in at least one chamber, most likely the House? Well, Cook, who performs careful district by district analysis across the country, sees the Democrats as having a chance to win the fifteen seats they need to gain control of the House. But he points out that this year Democrats have not been so successful in recruiting large numbers of experienced candidates with high name recognition and fund-raising ability in districts where the party should be competitive. As such, Cook is not predicting the type of changes in the House that occurred in the second-terms of Ike, LBJ, and Nixon/Ford.

There are other factors that will affect the prospects of Democratic challengers and Republican incumbents this fall. An obvious one is whether Americans' discontent with the President and his policies pushes enough voters past the tipping point, causing them to support Democratic House and Senate candidates as a protest even if this means ousting some popular incumbent Republicans. Watch for Democratic congressional challengers here in New Jersey try their best to make their races all about Bush and how Republican congressmen have helped the President hurt the nation, the state, and the district.

But watch for those same incumbent Republican congressmen here and elsewhere to make the case that they are willing to stand up to the President and for their state and district and have already done so. Don't be surprised if on the heels of the successful bipartisan rebellion against the Administration's port security contract with the U.A.E-owned company, some GOP congressmen buck Bush on such matters as his proposed tax and spending cuts and immigration, health care, energy, environment, and education policies. And don't be shocked if New Jersey's six incumbent Republican congressmen are among the President's biggest, if respectful, critics.

David P. Rebovich, is Managing Director of the Rider University Institute for New Jersey Politics (www.rider.edu/institute). He also writes a regular column, "On Politics," for NEW JERSEY LAWYER and writes monthly reports on New Jersey for CAMPAIGNS AND ELECTIONS Magazine.

by David P. Rebovich

Governor Jon Corzine will be on the road this week hosting budget "dialogues" at universities in the northern, central and southern parts of the state. These dialogues will be on the heels of a budget summit held by Corzine at Rutgers that will "...draw together New Jersey's leaders, policy-makers and experts in an effort to foster discussion, dialogue, and understanding about the state's multi-billion budget crisis." The dialogues at Montclair State, Monmouth and Rowan universities are geared more to the general public. Citizens are invited to not only listen to various matters pertaining to the budget crisis but "...to voice (their) thoughts on how we restructure New Jersey's future."

Let's hope this summit and these dialogues bring some straight talk on the state's budget situation and what should be done about it. The last few weeks there have been mixed messages coming out of the State House on the size of the budget deficit, what exactly the Governor is considering in terms of spending cuts and revenue raisers, and on his management style and commitment to changing the way Trenton does business. Of course, New Jerseyans will learn what Corzine's assumptions, goals and plans really are on March 21st when he makes his first Budget Address. But maybe we will have a better idea of what to expect after this week's events.

The Governor's grand tour has both an elitist and populist side. At the Rutgers summit Corzine will elicit input from "leaders, policy-makers and experts." Don't be surprised if these experienced, bright folks talk about several familiar topics. Such as the structural deficit, mandated spending, high levels of spending but scads of needs that have been overlooked, and tax inequities but concerns about scaring business away with high taxes on them and the well-off. They are also likely to encourage Corzine to think about the big picture, the long-run, and the need for fiscal stability and integrity, for property tax reform, for taking care of the truly needy, and for creating a favorable climate for business.

Good advice? Sure, except that it contains contradictions. In any case, for decades governors from both parties have heard these same recommendations, respected them, and even claimed to support many of them. But with the exception of Jim Florio, New Jersey's governors have usually ended up patching together annual spending and revenue-raising plans to get through tough years. To Corzine's credit, he is willing to have these ambitious ideas put on the record just a few weeks before he has to make his Budget Address. Perhaps this Governor is planning to make some bold moves and wants the advice of experts to provide him with some justification for his proposals and with some political cover.

But what is the Governor likely to hear at the three budget dialogues he is hosting? Well, those typical New Jerseyans who make comments will probably not talk about broad budget policy but about specific needs and wants. These may be serious matters, like aid to school districts, municipalities and colleges and universities, funding for programs for needy seniors, kids and the disabled, affordable housing, environmental cleanup and open space. There may also be calls for more money for port, surface transit and hometown security, for crime fighting, and for fighting substance abuse. And let's not forget economic development issues, including incentives for high technology firms, for investment in urban areas and for job training programs.

Legitimate needs and concerns? Certainly. And if Corzine did not hold these budget dialogues throughout the state, he would hear calls for action on these matters made on the steps of the State House by advocacy, interest and grassroots groups. In fact, those groups will no doubt be in Trenton after the Governor does make his Budget Address to demonstrate and to testify at hearings held by the legislature. As such, Corzine will receive input on spending wants and needs whether he wants such input or not. Since it is likely that many of the people calling for more government support see themselves as Democrats, it makes good political sense for the Governor to reach out to them.

But Corzine has to be careful that these dialogues don't devolve into "demand-fests" at a time when the state does not have the money to provide more help to many people or groups. In fact the Governor's purpose in holding a budget summit and dialogues is not, it seems, it elicit input about what the state should spend more money on. Rather, these events are aimed at improving citizens' understanding of the seriousness of the budget crisis and to generate ideas about "restructuring" the state's future, not necessarily increasing funding for that future.

The focus of these events then seems to be how to deal with the state's deficit. Therefore, the Governor may use them to explain the state's fiscal challenges, to educate the public about issue priorities, and perhaps to lay out some alternatives for addressing the short-term budget crisis and the need for long term fiscal stability. Will attendees of the budget dialogues expect or appreciate this? Well, it will be interesting to see if anyone at the three budget dialogues has suggestions about what state and local governments and school districts can cut to help the budget-balancing cause.

Don't hold your breadth on that one. Those in the Garden State who advocate cuts in spending are often drowned out by people calling for more government support. As Corzine embarks on his tour of the state to discuss budget issues, the question is whether he has done enough to convince people that "shared sacrifice" is necessary? Or, has he sent mixed messages to the state's political classes, his party's own constituent groups, and.New Jerseyans in general about how serious the state's financial problems are and what needs to be done?

The last few weeks it's been mixed messages. After insisting on the need for fiscal integrity, the Governor opted to avoid increasing the state gas tax and instead has forwarded a borrowing and refinancing plan to provide money for the Transportation Trust Fund. Then he directed his commissioners to prepare department budget proposals that contained 5 percent, 10 percent and 15 percent cuts. The commissioners were told that they should put everything on the chopping block, from state aid programs to jobs held by unionized workers.

Then after state worker union leaders squawked about not tolerating "this budget being balanced on the backs of hardworking public workers," the Governor backed off. He said, "Layoffs are not my intent. My intent is to reduce the size of government through attrition on an extended basis." However, he will leave open the possibility of tax increases to balance the budget. What this may suggest to New Jerseyans is that Corzine is willing to balance the budget on the backs of hardworking taxpayers before cutting low priority programs and the government workers staffing them. This is an issue the Governor should be prepared to discuss at the budget dialogues this week. He will need a convincing explanation as to why protecting state workers' jobs is more important than keeping taxes down or than providing more funds for state aid and a wide variety of programs.

David P. Rebovich, Ph.D., is Managing Director of the Rider University Institute for New Jersey Politics (www.rider.edu/institute). He also writes a regular column, "On Politics," for NEW JERSEY LAWYER and writes monthly reports on New Jersey for CAMPAIGNS AND ELECTIONS Magazine.

by David P. Rebovich

During last fall's campaign and in last month's inaugural address, Jon Corzine spoke forcefully about his commitment to restoring fiscal reasonability and integrity to state budgeting. Now the new Governor is thinking seriously about refinancing the debt assumed by the soon to be unfunded Transportation Trust Fund to obtain money to pay for transportation projects for the next five years. This despite the fact that budget experts, economists, and Corzine himself have labeled refinancing a costly gimmick that may provide lawmakers with a short-term political gain while saddling taxpayers with a long-term financial burden and the need to find money a few years down the road.

However, in today's political and economic environment, when the alternative is hiking the state gasoline tax, fiscal responsibility and integrity may well have to mean refinancing. New Jerseyans know about the state's budget problems. They also seem to realize that these problems cannot be solved solely by cutting inefficiency, waste and fraud in state operations and programs. That means, of course, that some sort of tax hikes will be needed to balance the budget and to pay for necessary programs, including repairing, maintaining and upgrading the state's roadways and mass transit system. But polls show that citizens here want their lawmakers to pursue cuts before even thinking about tax hikes.

That's especially true of raising the gas tax. The story that the state needs to find more money for transportation has been around for quite a while. So has the one that state officials have used gas tax revenues to pay salaries and to borrow billions rather than pay directly for annual spending on roads, bridges and mass transit. "We squandered money and now we want more" is hardly an effective pitch to a citizenry already cynical about politicians and angry about years of irresponsible state budgeting. Then add the other obvious fact that like most Americans, New Jerseyans are already upset about higher prices at the pump, and increasing those prices with a bigger state gas tax does not seem advisable.

Except that a higher gas tax is better than the alternative being bandied about. In the abstract, that is. But given the state's overall fiscal condition and the strong anti-tax sentiment here, Corzine's plan to refinance the Transportation Trust Fund's debt and borrow more money may make political sense. And, it just may make it easier for the Governor to make some unpleasant but fiscally responsible decisions to balance the state budget itself.

As Corzine explained on New Jersey 101.5 FM radio last Wednesday evening, he is disinclined to increase the state gas tax to provide needed revenues for the Transportation Trust Fund. Shortly all the money collected from the current 10.5 cent per gallon gas tax will have to be used to pay the interest on the $12 billion the state has borrowed to spend on transportation projects. Like Christie Whitman did a decade ago, Governor Corzine is considering refinancing the current debt at lower rates and borrowing upwards of $6 billion to pay for transportation projects for the next four years. In one version of this idea, the state would repay the existing and new debt over thirty years which would increase interest payments by $5 billion over that time period.

In his Inaugural Address Corzine announced, "There was a clear message heard last fall: we must change how our government does business...To do that we will need real reform...We cannot build a financial future on the crumbling, papered-over foundation of a recurring fiscal crisis. Too often, for too long, under both parties, fiscal gimmicks have been invented, recycled, and reapplied to mask fiscal realities...The games are over. New Jersey must put its fiscal house in order. The time of one-shot budget fixes is past. It's time to balance the books. Just as it's time to restore the Transportation Trust Fund..."

But refinancing and more borrowing don't permanently balancing the books. They are recycled techniques used by the Whitman Administration to obtain funds for the TTF and by the McGreevey Administration to balance budgets that were in structural deficit. Rather than putting the state's fiscal house in order, Corzine's idea passes the buck, literally, to future generations. But on the New Jersey 101.5 radio show, the Governor explained to news director Eric Scott that "...if there is a way we can responsibly raise capital to invest in long-term capital projects like highways and bridges and mass transit, then I don't think we are gimmicking." Corzine also invoked the textbook argument that the cost of capital projects should be shared by future users and beneficiaries. If repairs and upgrades to the transportation and mass transit systems will last for decades, why make current drivers pay the full costs of them through an increased gas tax?

Well, one reason is that future generations of New Jerseyans already have an a huge amount of debt passed on to them. Another is that the $5 billion in debt service that the state would take on in a refinancing and borrowing plan could be used for other necessary spending. Like for the currently bankrupt School Construction Corporation, whose obligations, we are told, will total some $12 billion. Does the Governor believe that this $12 billion should be borrowed? That would mean that the new Governor may well authorize $17 billion in debt in his first months in office. That does not seem like the reform, change or "tough choices" that Corzine said in his address were part of "the process of reestablishing fiscal integrity."

When confronted about the need for more recurring revenues to avoid the annual doomsday budget deficit scenarios of the last several years, Corzine has already shown himself to be capable of spinning. He insists that his Administration will do everything possible to "grow the economy" and attract good paying jobs to the Garden State. These new jobs will presumably enable New Jerseyans in the future to afford to pay off that big state debt and will provide state coffers with sufficient revenues so that future gimmickry will not be necessary.

Nonetheless, in his Inaugural Address Corzine did admit that achieving fiscal integrity "...will not be painless. A hike in the gas tax would be deemed "painful" by most New Jerseyans. But financial pain is relative, and a gas tax hike of 10 to 15 cents a gallon can be managed by many drivers here and in the long run have important societal benefits. At the risk of lecturing people about what they can afford, permit me to offer some simple math. A ten cent increase in the gas tax would cost the driver who uses 25 gallons a week an extra $2.50.

That's the price of a premium burger at a fast food chain, a designer cup of coffee, a 7-ounce bag of chips, and lots of other discretionary items that we can do without. It's also the price of one gallon of gasoline that, after all, can be conserved through intelligent driving practices. Now not everyone can make these sacrifices, as small as they are. But most New Jerseyans probably can. In the process they would do the environment a favor, save wear and tear on the roads, help cut down on accident rates, perhaps pick up a little exercise, and maybe even think about replacing a gas guzzler with a more fuel efficient vehicle. In the process they would prevent the state from borrowing billions of dollars that their kids and grand kids would have to pay back.

But Governor Corzine, a self-stated "progressive" Democrat, apparently does not support such common sense and political correct arguments. Is it because he doesn't have any confidence in his ability to convince his constituents of the need for, and the desirability of, stable funding for the Transportation Trust Fund. Maybe. After all, he's new to the job. Is it because he lacks the guts to raise taxes? That's doubtful.

On the contrary, smart money says that Governor Corzine will opt to refinance and borrow money to pay for transportation projects instead of raising the gas tax because he believes he will have to increase a broad-based tax to balance next year's budget. The talk on West State Street is about a possible "wholesale tax" and an extension of the sales tax to cover professional services. And don't forget that property tax reform will require a shift to more reliance on another revenue source, likely the state income tax. Corzine the politician may be a work in progress. But the new Governor already seems to understand that New Jerseyans may be calling for fiscal responsibility and integrity, but they can only take so much at one time.

David P. Rebovich, Ph.D. is Managing Director of the Rider University Institute for New Jersey Politics (www.rider.edu/institute). He also writes a regular column, "On Politics," for NEW JERSEY LAWYER, and writes monthly report on New Jersey for CAMPAIGNS AND ELECTIONS Magazine.

by David P. Rebovich

New Jersey has a new governor, a budget crisis, a bigger than anticipated deficit, and cannot avoid dealing with the state's fiscal underlying fiscal problems. The recent gubernatorial and assembly campaigns barely touched on these issues, much less what actions should be taken to address them. This is an old story in the Garden State, and headlines from the first weeks in office of the last three governors can be recycled and used to describe what Jon Corzine faces in his new position. As Yogi Berra would say, "It's deja vu all over again."

Except that this time New Jerseyans seem to know better. When Corzine and Republican gubernatorial candidate Doug Forrester avoided talking about budget matters, including how they would pay for property tax relief, citizens stayed away from the polls in record numbers. Recent surveys give the new Governor low ratings. Quinnipiac's latest poll shows that only 38 percent approve of the job he is doing. That anemic figure is a reflection of the vacuous campaigns, citizens' cynicism about politicians generally, the decline in knee-jerk partisanship, and perhaps some concern about Corzine's capabilities as a newcomer to state government. That same Quinnipiac poll revealed that 92 percent of residents are aware of the state's budget problems, and 54 percent that these problems are very serious..

Given some new headline stories, New Jerseyans will undoubtedly be even more concerned about the state's budget problems and what their new Governor will do to deal with them. In his Inaugural Address Corzine proclaimed that he would provide an "honest accounting" of the state's fiscal condition. He insisted that New Jerseyans want the facts and can understand them, as well as their implications for policy decisions. Well, last week Pete McAleer of the Atlantic City Press obtained a copy of the "Report of the Budget and Reengineering Government Transition Policy Group" and reported on the group's findings and recommendations. The state's other newspapers and media outlets followed suit.

The transition team's report on the budget is sobering, even scary. It asserts that New Jersey's budget problems are more serious than anyone on either side of the aisle assumed, that bold and painful decisions have to be made immediately, and that Corzine's campaign goals that endeared him to many people in his party's broad coalition will have to be put on hold. It concludes that getting the state back on track will not be an easy task or one that can be accomplished quickly.

For starters, the report calls on Corzine to think like a private sector CEO who must reengineer state government, eradicate unnecessary and low priority spending, and find new sources of revenue. Unless the Governor takes these actions, the state's fiscal condition will continue to deteriorate and result in a political crisis and a financial catastrophe. And unless he puts the state on firm financial footing, Corzine can forget about ever pursuing the progressive policy agenda that presumably motivated him to run for his new office.

What are state government's fiscal problems? Due to adopting spending programs it cannot afford, the use of one-shot gimmicks, past spending levels, and deferring needed funding, New Jersey is now a "financial basket case." The state is $30 billion in debt, has $30 billion in unfunded pension and health care liabilities, needs $1 billion for transportation funding, and faces a $6 billion shortfall in next year's budget. The state's spending has grown faster than the its ability to raise revenue, and much of that spending is mandated by contracts, court decisions, and popular legislation.

The transition team also noted that while the state will need to consider tax hikes, its ability to increase taxes is limited by competition with other states for business investment and good paying jobs. Having said that, the state's tax structure needs to evolve to take in to account principles of equity, the taxation of new activities and purchases, and the overriding need for more revenue. While reengineering - a euphemism for cutting inefficient practices and ineffective programs - and encouraging economic growth are both necessary, neither will deliver the savings or revenue that the state needs to balance its budget for the next fiscal year and make good on its funding responsibilities. Since there is little public support for tax increases - the latest Quinnipiac Poll verifies that -, lawmakers will need to work hard to convince the public that they are working responsibly and recommending measures that are truly needed.

The report suggests that "now is the time for the Executive Branch and the Legislature to beginning the process of returning the state to long-term fiscal health and financial discipline." Rather than offer a budget proposal, the transition team presented what it calls a "blue print for reform" aimed at moving the state in the right direction However, this blue-print does contain several specific recommendations. The state should immediately cut operating expenses and low priority spending in the budget and prepare a lay-off plan. It should "modernize" the state revenue structure by extending the sales tax to many services and products, treat all retirement plans the same for taxation purposes, and raise fees to match spending in specific program areas. If necessary, lawmakers should enact a temporary tax surcharge to balance the new budget. In addition, economic growth and job creation should be encouraged.

The State should also consider reforming the state pension and post-retirement health care plans to make them more consistent with private sector benefits. Yes, an increase in the state gas tax may be needed to provide money for the Transportation Trust Fund. A capital budgeting plan should be developed for the School Construction Corporation. The Governor should also create an office of reengineering government to streamline departments and processes. The civil service system must be changed to focus more on evaluation of worker performance. And, in the budget process lawmakers need to identify "core" government functions to guide their decisions, specify the long-term costs of new programs before passing them, establish a capital budgeting process, consider terminating various "tax expenditures," and create two year budgets.

The talk of possible sales and gas tax hikes and cuts in the government workforce and state worker benefits caused a furor in Trenton. The transition team members concluded their report to Corzine with the following statement. "We approach our task with the underlying assumption that your administration will not be 'business as usual in New Jersey government.' Rather, we assume and are encouraged by your vision of working toward a New Jersey government that is highly ethical, professional and responsive to its citizens, and is a viable economic engine that attracts and retains a broad spectrum of businesses that contribute to the financial, cultural and educational vitality, diversity, and unique strengths of our state."

Is Governor Corzine making this same assumption. Well, his staff and then the Governor himself called the leaked report simply a "draft of a draft of a draft." On further questioning, Corzine admitted that something must be done to address the state's fiscal woes, although he would prefer to cut taxes, not raise them. He went out of his way to tell reporters that no one should assume that "any line of this report will be followed." But, he added, the report is indicative of what bright people who look at the state's fiscal problems believe needs to consider. Where does this leave us, and what might we expect Corzine to do?

Well, one view is that the Administration leaked the transition team's controversial report. After the predictable outrage about possible tax hikes, Corzine could then present an austere budget proposal that may seem acceptable if it does not include all of the report's painful recommendations. Goodness knows this tactic is often used in politics. But this still leaves the question of how the Governor will try to balance next year's state budget and begin working toward long-term fiscal integrity.

According to the Quinnipiac Poll, 57 percent of New Jerseyans want Corzine to cut services before raising taxes. If tax hikes are going to be made, 61 percent prefer an increase in the sales tax while only 25 percent favor raising income tax rates. What about a gas tax increase to fund transportation projects? 69 percent are against it, while only 27 percent favor the measure. The math shows that the state will need more revenue to fund its many needed, required and worthy programs. Memo to the Governor. First cut spending and cut as deeply as you can to convince New Jerseyans that you understand their very legitimate concerns. And those concerns aren't in draft form.

David P. Rebovich, Ph.D., is Managing Director of the Rider University Institute for New Jersey Politics (www.rider.edu/institute). He also writes a regular column for NEW JERSEY LAWYER and writes monthly reports on New Jersey for CAMPAIGNS AND ELECTIONS Magazine.

by David P. Rebovich

The theme of Jon Corzine's inauguration was "New Jersey's New Beginnings." That's a standard and benign, if not especially inspiring, notion, and last Tuesday it evoked bittersweet feelings in Trenton's War Memorial. That's where lots of Democrats, a smattering of Republicans, and hundreds of members of the state's political establishment gathered to welcome the new governor, see a popular acting one step aside, and wonder if the ghost of a former one could really be exorcised from New Jersey politics.

by David P. Rebovich

Jon Corzine needs money. No, not for a campaign, much less for personal use. He needs money for the new state budget he will have to propose soon after assuming office in January. Ever since the U.S. Senator beat Doug Forrester in a race dominated by unfair attacks and unrealistic promises, New Jerseyans have been wondering how the Governor-elect would pursue his ambitious policy agenda and balance the budget. Last Tuesday at the New Jersey Business and Industry Association's Public Policy Forum, Corzine may not have provided any details about next year's budget. But he did give an audience of 400 business leaders, lobbyists, public officials and journalists a primer on his broad approach to dealing with the state's budget problems and for developing public policies..

by David P. Rebovich

A relatively close race turned into a route last Tuesday when Jon Corzine beat Doug Forrester by over 200,000 votes and a 53-44 percent margin to become New Jersey's next governor. Democrats here were both happy and relieved that their party was able to hold onto the governor's office after the tumultuous McGreevey years. Political observers around the nation were surprised the state's Democrats could do so well at the polls despite citizens' anger about high property taxes and political corruption.

By DAVID P. REBOVICH

Recent polls have shown that New Jerseyans think that multi-millionaire, self-financed candidates for governor are less likely to be influenced by interest groups. In the meantime, many residents complain that having their names and telephone numbers on the national and state "Do Not Call" lists does not prevent political candidates or parties from bothering them with campaign messages or requests for support. In addition, many folks privately admit that while they may praise "door to door" campaigning in principle, when a candidate rings their bell they regard it as another irritating intrusion on their private lives.

CLICK HERE to view Dr. David Rebovich's Archives, beginning January 3, 2002.