Randy Bishop Will Not Be An 11th District Assembly Candidate

Neptune Township Deputy Mayor Randy Bishop said he will not be a candidate for Assembly tonight when the 11th legislative district Democratic County Committee meets at that Asbury Park VFW to nominate a candidate to replace Marilyn Schlossbach.  Schlossbach resigned her candidacy last week citing business obligations.

“During the nominating process in the spring I determined that I would not put my name up this year,” said Bishop, ” I have commitments in Neptune and in my personal life that take priority now.  Too many of us in politics neglect our personal commitments.”

The list of potential candidates is a closely held secret.  “All I know is that I’m supposed to show up at 6:30 tonight,” Bishop said, “if you hear who’s in the running, let me know”

One Democratic source said this morning that a final round of interviews had “just happened” and a party favorite had not been determined.  The source wouldn’t say who has been interviewed.

If they have a quorum tonight, the 11th district Democratic County Committee members will nominate a running mate for Assembly candidate Vin Gopal and State Senate candidate Ray Santiago. Under Title 19, a quorum is 50% plus one of the county committee members.

The slate will face off against incumbent Republicans, Senator Jennifer Beck, Assemblywomen Mary Pat Angelini and Caroline Casagrande.  Former Democratic Assemblyman Dan Jacobson is also running for Assembly as an Independent.   Internal Democratic polling indicates that Beck, Angelini and Casagrande are heavy favorites to be elected in the newly configured district.

• Tweet

Democrats Mum On Schlossbach’s Replacement

Monmouth County Democrats have shrouded the selection of an Assembly candidate to replace Marilyn Schlossbach in the 11th legislative district in more secrecy than a Koch Brothers convention.

They won’t even say where and when the convention to vote on a candidate will be.  Campaign Manager Vlad Gutman said the convention will be “on Wednesday, somewhere in the district.” 

MMM has learned that the convention will be Wednesday, 6:30PM at the Asbury Park VFW.

Democratic County Committee members from the district are being called and urged to attend the convention which requires, under Title 19, a quorum of 50% plus 1 of the committee members in order to select a candidate.  While they are scrambling to get a quorum, the Democrats are also scrambling to find a candidate.  No mention of potential candidates is being made on the calls to the committee members and no one will say who is under consideration or who has thrown their hat into the ring.

Schlossbach’s withdrawal was a big blow to the Democrats’ slim hopes of picking up Assembly seats in Monmouth County.  An internal Democratic poll indicated that Schlossbach had the highest name recognition of all Assembly candidates, including incumbents Mary Pat Angelini and Caroline Casagrande.  While Schlossbach’s name recognition was superior, the poll indicated that the Republican team of Senator Jennifer Beck, Angelini and Casagrande are heavy favorites to win in November.  Beck’s name recognition and favorables in the district are huge.

Despite a voter registration advantage in the district, the Democrats have a very thin bench.  Elected officials like Red Bank Councilman Michael Dupont, Long Branch Councilman John Pallone (brother of the congressman), Neptune Township Deputy Mayor Randy Bishop and Eatontown Mayor Gerald Tarantolo all declined to run for the legislature back in April when the slate of Ray Santiago for Senate, Schlossbach and Vin Gopal for Assembly, all seeking their first elected office, was chosen by the party.  Now that the summer fund raising season has past and polling has been done, the district looks less winnable for Democrats than it did it April, making it less likely that an experienced politico with a base will step up to replace Schlossbach.

Also complicating the Democrats task of finding an Assembly candidate, Santiago and Gopal have made support of gay marriage a central theme of their campaign.  If marriage equality is a litmus test, finding a new candidate will be even more difficult.

Fund raising will be difficult whoever the Democrats nominate, with the possible exception of John Pallone who could tab his brother’s special interest supporters.  Beck is dominating the fund raising race in the district by both raising money for her team and discouraging donors from contributing to her opponents.  Beck called Cory Booker this week to express her displeasure over the fact that the Newark Mayor is headlining a fundraiser for Gopal later this month in Colts Neck.

The Democrats will probably come up with a nominee, if they get a quorum at the convention.  Whoever it is will be taking one for the team and will probably get a new job or appointment some time in the next year.

• Tweet

Not always as it seems…

Another side to the new anti-bullying law

By Dan Jacobson, also published in the September 9 edition of the triCityNews

I just can’t help myself.

When there’s an angle to a controversy that no one else will touch, I’ve got to reach out and grab it with both hands.

I just can’t stand it when a media horde goes off hell bent in one direction and misses a big part of a story. Add in a scrum of politicians riding the wave for their own advantage, and I get sucked in that much more.

I just call it like I see it. That’s what I’ve always done as a Publisher. It’s what I’m doing now as an Independent candidate for the State Assembly.

So let’s get the controversy going with the state’s new anti-bullying law, which took effect in our schools on September 1.

Passed overwhelmingly by the state legislature and signed by the Governor, the law is the toughest in the nation to stop bullying. Make no mistake. This is a huge problem.

It’s no longer some bullies in a schoolyard. With Facebook pages, websites and texting, bullying has moved to cyberspace. You could have dozens, if not hundreds, of kids tormenting another child. It’s sick.

So anti-bullying advocates joined with Garden State Equality – the state’s leading gay and lesbian civil rights organization – to get the new law passed. Given that this paper is a big supporter of Garden State Equality, and that the media reports were all glowing, the anti-bullying law sure sounded like a no brainer to me, even if I didn’t know all the details.

Meanwhile, some right-wing Republicans were expressing opposition – I assumed because Garden State Equality was in favor. What a bunch of sick bigots, I thought.

Then a couple weeks ago, I was talking with powerful Republican blogger Art Gallagher of Highlands. Art and I share a libertarian streak on economics, and often agree on policy. As I’m leaving, he says that the anti-bullying law will be a costly mess to implement, and school districts are up in arms over it. An agitated Gallagher claimed it’s a complete overreaction to the problem.

I dismissed his comments as the rantings of a red neck Republican.

Five days later, the New York Times – of all newspapers – runs a front page story reporting that New Jersey schools are struggling with the costs and burdens of implementing the law!

I was shocked.

“I think this has gone well overboard,” Richard G. Bozza, executive director of the New Jersey Association of School Administrators told the Times. “Now we have to police the community 24 hours a day. Where are the people and the resources to do this?”

The Times article stated that while many parents and educators welcome the new law, others say it “reaches much too far, and complain that they have been given no additional resources to meet its mandates.”

Of course, when all the politicians got up at the press conferences to brag about passing the anti-bullying law, no one – including the mainstream media – told us the other side of the story. Specifically, that the state was providing no money to local school districts to implement it.

Hey, it’s easy to be a hero when someone else is picking up the tab.

And if we can’t get the full story on the anti-bullying law, imagine how screwed we get on legislation with much less noble purposes. Unfortunately, no politician was willing to expose themselves politically as having reservations on the anti-bullying law. It’s like questioning Mom and Apple Pie.

Of course, the media is too dumb to pick up on the concerns, with the exceptions of the New York Times after the fact and local Republican blogger Art Gallagher, a most improbable combination indeed. (Check out the Times article on-line entitled “Bullying Law Puts New Jersey Schools on Spot” on August 30.)

Let me be clear: I still believe the anti-bullying law is a good thing. There’s a broad public benefit – a real chance to incorporate an ethic against bullying into our culture. This is not a bullshit piece of legislation. But there should have been an honest effort to pay for it. That would have exposed the bill to more rigorous analysis, and increased the chances that any parts not cost-beneficial would have been dropped. And it would not have left local school districts, already burdened with budget cuts, to pay the tab.

Before the New York Times article, I would have said I’m for the anti-bullying law, based on who was advocating for it, as well as the severity of the problem it attacks. As one sponsor recently said, “How could anyone be against this?”

But this is a great example of how not everything is exactly what it seems in government. Look, I’d rather not go down to Trenton and be the crank who always votes no on politically popular legislation that everyone else supports.

Yet I can see that happening. I absolutely refuse to sit there and lie with a straight face. If I see bill after bill come by me to make politicians heroes – while handing the tab to someone else to pay – I’d probably start voting no on every one. 

Don’t know if I’d have been at that stage with the anti-bullying law. At the least, I would have offered amendments on ways to pay for it – and get the legislature on record as literally passing the buck. Maybe doing that enough times on enough bills would get the media to take notice.

Not taking responsibility to pay for what we spend has got to stop, no matter how noble the cause. It’s bullshit. If something like the anti-bullying law is that important – and it is – then give the local school districts the money to pay for it. But perhaps that would have doomed the law. How quaint. How hypocritical.

Bleeding heart liberals and red neck Republicans can all unite on what I’m saying. After all, not taking fiscal responsibility is what causes taxes to go up. And when the money inevitably runs out, it’s the truly vulnerable who always get screwed — they don’t have the votes, the campaign contributions or the media clout to protect themselves.

So remember this column the next time you see politicians doing what they do best: looking like heroes at a press conference.

Because there’s likely another side to the story.

• Tweet

Jacobson lacks the character and brains…

 By Dan Jacobson, also published in the August 25, 2011 edition of The triCityNews

This Publisher is unapologetically opinionated in these pages. Often with a harsh, abrasive and profane style.

How do I get away with it? By happily running commentary trashing this newspaper or me personally. We love doing that. It’s what provides balance. Quite effectively.

Currently, I’m running as an Independent for the state Assembly. And I’ve been bluntly stating my positions in these columns the past couple months.

So it’s time to publish some opposition! And I’ve got the perfect source – the reader comments on the website of powerful Republican blogger Art Gallagher. Art lets me post these columns on his More Monmouth Musings site, and my commentary certainly draws some fire. Almost all the comments are posted anonymously.

So in the interest of balance – as well as a creative way to take a week off from this column – I present these opposing viewpoints about the Jacobson for Assembly campaign:

Dan Jacobson lacks the character and the brains to be elected to public office. It goes without saying – and without having to hold a general election – that most voters around here feel the same way.

–Truth

Dan,

There is no doubt you have some great communication skills. However, being pro choice and favoring same sex marriage is your downfall. I suggest you speak with a strong religious scholar. You might just find the missing link in your life.

—Momwiilto

What a nightmare this guy’s writing is. And he runs a newspaper?

Besides, he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He’s trying to disguise his one issue, that of gay marriage. He can’t win, but he’d love to play spoiler.

–Freespeaker1976

Can this guy write a piece without using an expletive?

Reaching for shock value much? Seems as though that is the only chance he has got to garner attention.

–Acollegerepublican

Really? Who cares? Only you. Of all the issues they need to be worrying about, this ranks very near the bottom. I say to all of you NYers, regardless of orientation, go back to NY.

–Abe (In response to a column in support of same-sex marriage)

Dan Jacobson, using your paper the way you are right now as an official candidate is, in my opinion, very unethical.

–Commonsense

Dan who? … (Yawn)

–Parabellum

 I don’t understand why he is doing this. Dan should worry about his newspaper.

–Monmouth County Democratic Chairman Vic Scudiery (obviously concerned about me cutting into the Democratic vote)

Sounds like he wants to be a spoiler to hurt the GOP….just like that “Tea party” candidate did in that upstate NY Congressional District recently.

–TheDigger (obviously concerned about me cutting into the Republican vote)

Dan has an entertaining paper but he will have ZERO impact on this race. Maybe 10 democrats, 10 republicans and 50 nut jobs will vote for him. I hope he has fun with it because at least that will spice it up a little.

–TR (obviously concerned about me cutting into nobody’s vote)

Do the words “duplicitous rear end schmuck” mean anything?

–FreeSpeaker1976

Another entrant in the “attention whore of the Jersey Shore”. Congrats on being the first “male” entrant Dan.

–Brian

I too was less than enchanted with Jacobson’s potty mouth language, but then; I thought about it for a moment.

BRILLIANT MOVE ART, publishing (this column). It shows what an arse Jacobson is. Take it for what it’s worth, Rush Limbaugh does this a lot. He lets the idiots talk and the more they talk, the more they expose their idiocy.

But then, what do you expect from a rabid left wing loon.

–Freespeaker1976

Is Jacobson talking about himself being an ass? Beyond that, I have never seen such a run-on and worthless writing style. God save us if this fool wins an election.

The only thing he seems to be good for is the sale of Tums for people who need them after they read his bilge.

–Freespeaker1976

So Mr. Jacobson, Michelle Bachman is a wacko? Why, because she has different ideas about religion and social issues then you do? There are a large number of people who agree with her on those issues. In many parts of the Country they are a majority.

Let me add this Michelle Bachman has provided foster care for 23 children. If she is a wacko we need more of them. Have you ever done anything nearly that selfless? I know I sure have not and I doubt you have either. No all you can do is sit back and be a smart mouth. I would ask you if you have any shame but I already know the answer.

From now on I propose you be known by a more appropriate name… Mr. Jackass.

–TR

Right TR – Dan Jacobson is an intellectual lightweight who can only resort to calling people names – especially when they are light years ahead of him in ability and accomplishment. Michelle Bachmann is a brilliant tax attorney who understands the dire straits our country is in. She is a strong leader who has undergone more scrutiny in a week than our Muslim president has undergone in six years. His candidacy is a joke – this just confirms it.

–Proud Republican

…and that idiots like this can be candidates for office is further proof that not only is this country going to implode, it deserves to.

–Brian

(The 11^th District where I’m running includes: Asbury Park, Long Branch, Red Bank, Ocean Township, Neptune, Neptune City, Interlaken, Deal, Allenhurst, Loch Arbour, West Long Branch, Eatontown, Shrewsbury Borough, Shrewsbury Township, Tinton Falls, Colts Neck, Freehold Township and Freehold Borough.)

• Tweet

How Much You Want For That Assembly Seat?

By Dan Jacobson, also published in the August 18 edition of the triCityNews

When you’re running for office in America, there’s the inevitable question about the seriousness of your campaign:

 How much money are you going to raise?

People are now starting to ask that about me. Because I’m running for the state Assembly as an Independent. And I’ve been getting lots of attention lately by bluntly stating my positions in this space. Exactly as I’ve always done as Publisher of the triCityNews.

In fact, serving as an Assemblyman would be an extension of my work as a journalist. It would provide another platform for my advocacy at the state level. But most rewarding would be how I’d hold the office – with complete independence to say and do what I want. I’d owe no one. And I completely reject politics as we know it today.

Yeah, I admit it. I have some big ambitions here. I want to break the mold of politics in this state.

And that starts with my campaign.

Of course, I’d love to do the actual work of an Assemblyman. But I’m certainly not obsessed with getting elected. And that obsession is what I can’t stand about politicians. I can’t even listen to candidates anymore. It’s too infuriating. In fact, politics today is downright cheesy. I think it’s demeaning to those running. It’s actually embarrassing to watch.  

So whether it’s glad-handing at political events, handing out the same old campaign literature, mouthing the typical bullshit or getting caught up in the money chase – I’m rejecting it all. Yup, I won’t do it. And I don’t give a shit. If that’s the only way to win, then I don’t win. No problem. I don’t want the office any other way. I don’t want to be a cheesy politician.

Which brings me back to fundraising.

“Dan will wake some people up,” said powerful Republican blogger Art Gallagher on his More Monmouth Musings blog about my candidacy recently. “But unless he raises and spends some serious money, he will not be a factor.”

Art may indeed be right. The major party candidates, backed by their state party organizations, have been known to spend over $1 million in hotly contested legislative districts. Of course, everyone knows what that money represents – and where it comes from. It’s gross. I know firsthand. I was in such a race 20 years ago in my late 20s when I won one term in the state Assembly. Never again. It’s disgusting.

Look, I’ve stated flat-out that I don’t expect to win. No Independent in New Jersey has won an Assembly seat in 50 years. So the odds are overwhelmingly against me. And conventional wisdom says that you’ve got to raise serious money to be a serious candidate.

Then again, I’m not a conventional guy, and I’ve always rejected conventional thought. I make my own judgments. And I would not run if I didn’t at least think I could win. It is possible.

This is a five candidate race featuring two Republicans, two Democrats and me. We are competing for the two Assembly seats in the 11^th District. Voters can vote for up to two candidates. I may get only 10 percent of the vote. Or I may win by 10 votes. Maybe I’ll lose by 10 votes. Perhaps I’ll come in first by 1,000 votes.

I really don’t care. That’s the liberating part. I know exactly how I want to run this campaign. And I know exactly how I’d serve if elected. That’s all set in stone. There’s no deviating from it.

That means winning or losing is out of my hands. As it should be – because I won’t change who I am or what I say to affect the outcome. Got no interest in doing so. That’s why this campaign may have a special resonance with voters if they pick up on it.

My beliefs are united by one thing – a knee-jerk reaction against the concentration of power, wherever it may be found. That includes government employee unions who use mandatory dues to elect those sitting across the bargaining table. That includes powerful corporations that get government favors instead of competing in the free market. It also includes big media – my disgust with the Gannett-owned Asbury Park Press is well-documented. And it includes political parties who order elected officials what to do. I recoil against it all.

As for social issues, I’m pro-choice and in favor of same sex marriage. Government should not be involved in such private matters.

By the way, there will be some money spent on this campaign. I’m not disclosing how much. That will eventually be on the campaign finance reports. But it will certainly not be considered “serious money”.  Yup, I want to be that cheap. I’ll owe no one.

Keep in mind, however, that there are two things I know quite well: Communications and politics. In the end, I say my unconventional campaign – run purposely on the cheap – will have as much punch as a conventional one spending $100,000.

Still, is that enough for an Independent to win? Probably not. But it’s not impossible.

So why do this at all?

Here’s my motivation: It would be tremendously satisfying to win this campaign by saying exactly what I think. Literally not changing one word. I’ve never seen that done before. What an accomplishment that would be!

That, in turn, would lead to the most professionally rewarding experience possible in government: Holding an elected office without owing anyone. After running a campaign where you told voters the truth.

That’s the fantasy of all decent people who’d like to serve in public office. And that’s the only way I’m willing to do it.

(The 11^th District where I’m running includes: Asbury Park, Long Branch, Red Bank, Ocean Township, Neptune, Neptune City, Interlaken, Deal, Allenhurst, Loch Arbour, West Long Branch, Eatontown, Shrewsbury Borough, Shrewsbury Township, Tinton Falls, Colts Neck, Freehold Township and Freehold Borough.)

Editors note: All candidates for any office are welcome to submit material to MMM.  You don’t even have to be a candidate for office to submit.  As long as I think your stuff will be of interest to my readers, I’ll probably publish it, unless it needs more than 30 seconds worth of editing.  If your stuff needs lots of editing, I probably won’t open your second email.

If you quote me and stroke my ego, your chances of publication are very good.  Send to Artvg at aol dot com.

• Tweet

11th District Democrats Making Marriage Equality A General Election Issue

By Art Gallagher

The 11th district Democratic team of Ray Santiago for Senate, Marilyn Schlossbach and Vin Gopal for Assembly are planning on making marriage equality a key plank of their general election platform.

According to the “Our Plan”  page on their website, the candidates “strongly support” full marriage equality for all Americans.  They also plan to create more jobs in the 11th district and protect the shoreline by opposing off shore drilling and working with Clean Ocean Action.

• Tweet

Pension crisis and my Asbury Park Press endorsement

By Dan Jacobson

So I’m running as an Independent for the state Assembly. And I can’t wait to face the Asbury Park Press editorial board for the endorsement interview.

That ought to be interesting. I’ve been blasting them as hypocrites of the first order for over a decade. I also call them assholes whenever necessary. They deserve it.

Yet on the most important issue facing our state government – the $120 billion shortfall needed to pay pension and retiree health benefits – suddenly the Asbury Park Press has eerily followed the triCity line.

In other words, I look forward to their endorsement.

From my column last week:

Any day now, you’ll see our Republican Governor and Democratic legislative leaders announce a deal to “reform” our state pension system.

Don’t believe it. This is a problem requiring 20 years of fiscal discipline. These people can’t see beyond the next election in 20 weeks….

So when you see our Republican Governor and Democratic legislative leaders announce some deal to address this problem, remember this: It’s all about the election in five months when the Senate and Assembly are up for grabs. It’s not a permanent deal. It can always be reversed or changed later…

Sure, they’ll make some progress with their deal – just enough to con you to think something is getting done. But not on a scale that really solves this problem. There’s not enough political upside and way too much political downside.

Indeed, the next day such a deal was announced. Three days later, the Press ran a front page article on the agreement entitled “Experts: Reforms not Enough”.

A better headline would have been “Jacobson was right”. Here’s the Press:

Government workers are white-hot angry over a proposal to make them pay more for their pensions and health care.

But with the state now facing a $120 billion long-term cost for the unfunded portion of pensions and retiree health benefits, experts say that the measure, expected to be voted in the full state Senate on Monday, does not go far enough.

“It’s a healthy modest bipartisan step, but it doesn’t deal with a lot of the major problems,” said Michael Riccards of the Hall Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that specializes in state issues. “I see a lot of it as postponement.”

Jeremy Gold, a New York-based actuary consultant who reviewed the pension and benefit reform proposal for New Jersey Press Media, agreed. “Any step in the right direction, I don’t want to be too harsh about,” Gold said. “But they are a long way from solving their problems.”

…(E)xperts see flaws in the package. Riccards, who has written extensively about the pension and benefit problems, said the state has yet to deal with the high cost of health care, such as the price of drugs, especially common drugs such as antibiotics.

He also noted that the state must still pay for retirees’ medical care out of the annual budget. In tough economic times, that could be a problem, Riccards said.

Gold said he takes issue with how the funding levels of the pension funds are calculated and said government rules over public pensions are too lax.

Tell you what. I was certain the Press would fall for the hype and cover the bipartisan “reform” as if it solves this catastrophic $120 billion crisis. They’re usually pretty clueless. To my shock, they got it right.

As did I.

Hell, I didn’t even have to see the so-called reforms beforehand. I knew what was coming.

(Sure, I’d vote for this bipartisan deal – it’s better than doing nothing. But I wouldn’t brag about how great it is, as you’ll now see the Governor and some Democratic leaders do as they compete for votes this November. The experts interviewed by the Press had it right: This is only a modest bipartisan start – the tough stuff still remains. Why am I not shocked?)

OK, so now what?

The elected officials are utterly incapable of dealing with something of this magnitude: The proposed state budget for this year is only $29 billion compared to the $120 billion gap we face on pensions and retiree health care.

My framework for a solution? Ripping the problem away from the politicians. I see no other way out.

I’d advocate a constitutional amendment – approved by the voters – establishing an independent Board of Trustees to oversee the pension and retiree health benefits system. They’d calculate the true amount necessary to make the system solvent – and take it out of the Treasury every year.

No cheating on figures. No cheating on the funding. Remember that the pension system has been underfunded for over 15 years. The politicians spent that money elsewhere. Just like what happened with Social Security on the federal level for the past 20 years. But in the end, we’re all responsible for this debacle. We elected these people.

The problem of pension and retiree health benefits in New Jersey can’t be solved without spreading the pain among everyone in our state. And the sooner we get to it the better. Otherwise, this debt will destroy us – and you’ll see the streets of Trenton looking like Athens, complete with the tear gas and rioting. What a nice image of New Jersey as a place to live and locate your business.

The constitutional amendment I envision would empower the independent Board of Trustees to draw up a rescue plan with the directive to seek equity in the sacrifice of the populace. That means benefit cuts to workers already retired and who will retire. And new revenue from taxes. The Amendment would specifically require both. You can’t do it any other way. Any politician telling you otherwise is lying. If you want to keep buying the bullshit, go ahead. It’s worked great so far.

Remember this: The more you spread around the sacrifice, the less of a burden it is on everyone individually. But you can never pull that off in the political system. That’s why I’d have the Pension Trustees do it for us. Of course, their rescue plan would require voter approval. You got to have that to raise taxes and cut benefits in this fashion.  

If voters reject their rescue plan, the Trustees would still take what’s needed each year from the state Treasury to fund the system. No more putting off Judgment Day. And then the three ring circus – the Governor, the Senate and the Assembly – can figure out how to pay for it. That ought to be one hell of a show.

In my proposal, I’d have the Board of Trustees appointed to staggered and lengthy terms by the Governor with the approval of the state Senate. They’d be barred from political activity, and would have no past connections to unions for a decade if not more.

The concept is to get a group of our state’s best talent to tell us the truth, and present us a plan made in good faith to deal with this issue. In the end, we make the call. If the Trustees get too political, or go too far off the rails, the voters would reject it. Anyone got a better idea?

An independent Board of Trustees sounds reasonable to me. Which means it will never happen. But in the unlikely event I get elected to the Assembly – only one Independent has done so in 50 years – at least someone will stand up and speak the truth about this explosive problem.

Just like I did in this space last week – as the Asbury Park Press most unexpectedly confirmed a few days later.

Man, this campaign is already getting awfully weird, and it’s only been three weeks.

(The 11^th District where I’m running includes: Asbury Park, Long Branch, Red Bank, Ocean Township, Neptune, Neptune City, Interlaken, Deal, Allenhurst, Loch Arbour, West Long Branch, Eatontown, Shrewsbury Borough, Shrewsbury Township, Tinton Falls, Colts Neck, Freehold Township and Freehold Borough.)

• Tweet

Pension crisis! Tear gas over Trenton…

Editors note: The following column by Dan Jacobson was originally published in the June 16, 2011 edition of the triCityNews.  It was written before the recent agreement of pension and health care reform struck by Governor Christie, Senate President Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Oliver.

By Dan Jacobson

Any day now, you’ll see our Republican Governor and Democratic legislative leaders announce a deal to “reform” our state pension system.

Don’t believe it. This is a problem requiring 20 years of fiscal discipline. These people can’t see beyond the next election in 20 weeks.

Our state government is $121 billion short of what’s needed to pay projected pension and retiree health benefits. How bad is it? This year’s proposed state budget is only $29.4 billion.

In other words, we’re bankrupt.

Remember the rioting in Greece last year? You bet there could be tear gas over Trenton if this isn’t fixed. And I’m not optimistic.

Last week, I announced I’m running for the state Assembly as an Independent. So let me piss off everyone by outlining what needs to be done. And it’s ugly. No way around it.

First, this problem must be ripped away from the politicians. I’d propose a state constitutional amendment – requiring voter approval – to establish an independent Board of Trustees to administer the pension and retirement health benefits system.

Each year, these independent Trustees would recalculate the total projected shortfall the state faces. No fudging the numbers by politicians. And the Board of Trustees would develop and oversee a long-term plan to restore the system – and thus the state’s finances – to solvency.

In addition, the Board would determine the annual contribution to the system – and it would have to be paid by the state. The elected officials have underfunded it for 15 years. With a constitutional amendment, that would end. No more cheating. We’d pay what’s needed to fix the problem.

And the Board of Trustees would be empowered to do what the politicians can’t: Set up a plan of benefit cuts and tax increases to fix the system by spreading the pain as widely as possible. And the wider it’s spread, the less it hurts everyone individually. Everyone has got to take a hit. We’re all in this mess together.

By the way, those benefit cuts would affect current and future retires already in the system. There’s no other way to do it. Elected officials only talk about changing the benefits for new employees. That’s not enough. So I envision everyone equally screaming – taxpayers, retirees, future retirees – when the Trustees propose a plan to fix this mess. Ironically, that way you know it’s fair.

But this is not a dictatorship. The rescue plan from the Board of Trustees would be submitted for voter approval.

If voters reject it, the Pension Trustees would simply take what’s needed every year from the state Treasury to ensure the system’s solvency. In that scenario, the three-ring circus in the State House – the Governor, the Assembly and the Senate – would figure out how to pay that annual bill. Of course, that will be a mess. But the bill would be paid. No more underfunding the system. No more postponing Judgment Day. I’d rather face it on our terms.

There you have it. That’s the basic outlines of my proposal. Here’s some more details:

The Board of Pension Trustees would be non-political like Judges. They’d be appointed by the Governor with the consent of the state Senate. None would have business or financial connection to unions for at least a decade, if not more. They’d have long and staggered terms as Trustees to minimize political interference.

And in putting together a rescue plan, their directive in the constitutional amendment would be quite specific: To implement a mix of both benefit cuts and tax increases – and it would specifically require both – to spread the burden as equitably as possible across all the citizens of this state.

Sure, that would require subjective judgments. There’s no mathematical formula to achieve this. But at least a rescue plan by the Trustees would be made in good faith by non-political appointees – not politicians seeking reelection. And voters would have the final say.

In other words, we’d face this problem like adults. We’d empower an independent group of people to tell us the truth. And propose a solution for us to consider. We’d then make the final call in a statewide vote.

Sure sounds better than tear gas canisters fired at protestors when a bankrupt state can’t pay its bills – and people become more outraged than anything we’ve ever seen in New Jersey.

But maybe all is not lost. Take the sentiment of retired state worker Vincent Lobascio, 85. He’s ready to sacrifice some of his benefits. Let’s hope most other citizens share his views – or we’re done.

“I’m willing to make my contribution, and I’m a retired guy,” the World War II combat veteran told the Asbury Park Press in a story about the pension crisis. “But don’t kill me.”

I’m with Mr. Lobascio. This 49 year-old taxpayer would pay more to solve this mess – just don’t kill me either. We’re all adults. We all know something must be done. Just spread that burden around as widely as possible. In the end, the solution is likely reasonable.

But politicians can’t do that because they’re competing for the support of blocs of voters – whether liberal union members or anti-tax conservatives. It’s all about getting elected. In fact, both those voter blocs I just mentioned will be outraged at this column.

Oh well. So I’ll get to remain a private citizen. Wow, what a tragedy.

So when you see our Republican Governor and Democratic legislative leaders announce some deal to address this problem, remember this: It’s all about the election in five months when the Senate and Assembly are up for grabs. It’s not a permanent deal. It can always be reversed or changed later. And you bet that will happen when the economy starts to do better and no one is paying attention.

Sure, they’ll make some progress with their deal – just enough to con you to think something is getting done. But not on a scale that really solves this problem. There’s not enough political upside and way too much political downside. The state has never faced a challenge this big. Plus, I don’t believe any figures or estimates these clowns throw around. They’re all biased toward getting reelected.

But a constitutional amendment empowering an independent Board of Trustees goes a long way toward eliminating political mischief.

And in my proposal, we’d even get to vote on any rescue plans from the Trustees. If they want to modify a rescue plan later, we’d all vote on that too. If any plan is rejected, the state would still fully fund the retirement system every year and stop the cheating.  Imagine how different everything would be if that was done for the past 15 years.

Hey, such a constitutional amendment sounds reasonable to me. That means it doesn’t have a chance in Trenton.

So in the most unlikely event I get elected to the Assembly – only one Independent has done so in 50 years – at least there’d be one person down there speaking the truth about the most dangerous problem this state has ever faced.

(The 11^th District where I’m running includes: Asbury Park, Long Branch, Red Bank, Ocean Township, Neptune, Neptune City, Interlaken, Deal, Allenhurst, Loch Arbour, West Long Branch, Eatontown, Shrewsbury Borough, Shrewsbury Township, Tinton Falls, Colts Neck, Freehold Township and Freehold Borough.)

• Tweet

Meeting Vin Gopal

By Tommy DeSeno

Everyone has certain ideas that they’d like to be remembered for.  When you write a weekly column, you end up with a few of them.

One of mine is this:  “Politics is 1% of who we are.  Never let that stop you from getting to know the other 99% of a person.”

Last night I went to a party in Asbury Park to honor this year’s Independence Day Parade Grand Marshal, Hazel Samuels.

As I was handshaking and hugging old friends I hadn’t seen for some time, from the other side of a large round table someone introduced me to Vin Gopal. 

Since candidates become captive audiences during campaign season to anyone who wants to talk to them, I figured I’d go over and get a sense of the 11^th District Assembly candidate for the Democrats.

I ended up meeting a very likable fellow.  Vin’s physical demeanor is comfortable.  He sat in his chair sort of laid back and to the side rather than stiffly composed.  He wasn’t trying to dominate the people around him. His conversational tone was just that.  There were no contrived candidate sound bites. No “handlers” trying keep our conversation brief.  Although I’m sure he was “working the room” as candidates do, he did so in a way that made it seem he belonged in the room – that he was one of the gang.  A real natural.

 I did want to get into some issues, so I did the right thing and let Vin know that I am a journalist and asked him if I could go on the record with him so I wouldn’t sandbag him.  That’s the right way to handle that by the way.  There is a wrong way to do that, for instance if I were a member of the Highlands Republican Club, I wouldn’t go to a meeting as a club member, secretly decide everyone was on the record without telling them, and report what I heard, like you know who did. 

Anyway, Vin made some interesting points that conservatives might like. Let me share one in particular:

Something that irks Vin Gopal is unemployment insurance in New Jersey.  Vin is a small business owner.  He thinks unemployment is too easy to get, too easy to stay on and too easy to take unfair advantage of against employers.  He wants the system revised to be friendlier to business.

Very interesting!  I would have expected an answer like that from a Republican at a Chamber of Commerce meeting.

One last point:  None of the Republican candidates were at the Asbury Park dinner, nor was Dan Jacobson.  I’ll note that when Sean Kean was the assemblyman and senator here, even though Asbury Park never voted for him, Sean supported and attended every Asbury Park function.  Thanks for being there, Vin Gopal.

• Tweet

Democrats Welcome Jacobson Into 11th District Assembly Race

The following is a statement from District 11 Assembly candidates Marilyn Schlossbach and Vin Gopal on Dan Jacobson’s entrance to the 11th District race:

“We have both known Dan for quite some time and we appreciated him personally reaching out to both of us to give us a heads up that he would be running. We believe more people should run for public office and we welcome Dan to the race. This is a representative democracy and the voters, after examining all the candidates running, will have to make an educated decision on whom they believe will be best to represent the 11th Legislative District.”

• Tweet