Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have (Discussion)

On May 5^th 2014 I posted my latest commentary on my blog under the heading "Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have." This can be accessed here.

Almost immediately comments started coming in.

Nicole Scheller of Lawrenceville, NJ reacted with this:

An issue close to my heart. I even keep a stash of bags at school, so if I take the kids shopping, we're not forced to use plastic. I'm still considered weird for this, but I'm ok with that. I do hear a lot of folks excusing their use of plastic bags because they are recyclable now, but as you know recycling takes energy and the end product will find itself in a landfill eventually.

Joel Wiener of Arlington, Virginia expressed the view:

Some stores charge for plastic bags, while others give the customer a small credit for using their own bags.  I prefer to use paper bags since they decompose quickly and I use the empty bags for recycling newspapers.

Plastic bags can be recycled if disposed of properly.  

The problem, like with most things, is with compliance and a sense of personal responsibility.

To which I replied:

You are making an assumption that is commonplace. Please read the article here where you will find that paper bags don’t really have much of an advantage over plastic. To quote from part of the article:

“Before you brown bag it, consider these environmental disadvantages of paper:

•                Causes pollution: Paper production emits air pollution, specifically 70 percent more pollution than the production of plastic bags [source:Thompson]. According to certain studies, manufacturing paper emits 80 percent more greenhouse gases [source: Lilienfield]. And, consider that making paper uses trees that, instead, could be absorbing carbon dioxide. The paper bag making process also results in 50 times more water pollutants than making plastic bags [source:Thompson].

•                Consumes energy: Even though petroleum goes into making plastic, it turns out that making a paper bag consumes four times as much energy as making a plastic bag, meaning making paper consumes a good deal of fuel [source: reusablebags.com].

•                Consumes water: The production of paper bags uses three times the amount of water it takes to make plastic bags [source: Lilienfield].

•                Inefficient recycling: The process of recycling paper can be inefficient -- often consuming more fuel than it would take to make a new bag [source: Milstein]. In addition, it takes about 91 percent more energy to recycle a pound of paper than a pound of plastic [source: reusablebags.com].

•                Produces waste: According to some measures, paper bags generate 80 percent more solid waste [source: Lilienfield].

•                Biodegrading difficulties: Surprisingly, the EPA has stated that in landfills, paper doesn't degrade all that much faster than plastics [source: Lilienfield].

But that doesn’t mean that plastic is better, as the article goes on to say:

However, plastic didn't get a bad reputation for nothing. Here are some environmental disadvantages of plastic: (and then lists many).

There simply is no substitute for making use of re-usable bags, which we should all do voluntarily as I, my wife and my daughter do. 

But this issue is far too important to allow for voluntarism.  As my original post has indicated many governments have instituted action to discourage the use of disposable bags of any kind and that we need to do the same.

I personally would favor a significant tax on every bag issued by a retailer. I would urge a minimum of 25¢ per bag and preferably a $1.00 assessment. That would be an effective inducement to the use of re-usable bags. It is essential that we, as a society take action against the blight of waste and its devastation on the environment."

Which prompted this response from Wiener:

I suppose that canvas bags would also have an environmental impact due to their manufacture and the printing found on them:

The common message throughout all of these facts is to re-use bags, and the more they are re-used, whether paper, plastic, canvas or mesh, the less impact on the environment.

I think that the addition of a per bag tax would not be much of a deterrent, since even at a buck a bag, most people will forget to bring their bags and will have no choice but to pay the tax and get the bag, as opposed to carrying an armful of loose groceries. 

Which prompted this further observation on my part:

Your point is well taken. The key is "to re-use bags”.

But I don’t agree that a "buck a bag" would not be a deterrent. Even 25¢ a bag would be. We can see this from the extent to which people clip coupons and use store member cards to get discounts. But the common 2¢ or even less a bag does nothing.

The idea that "forgetting has its costs" is a wonderful way to jolt the memory.

(Some good slogans there.)

Albert Nikemkin of Vienna, Virginia chimed in with:

Thanks for sharing this.

IKEA has the solution to this problem. I was at a local store yesterday: it doesn't provide any bags at all for purchases. However, it does SELL reusable bags at the checkout counter for those who want them and/or forgot to bring one. I think that would certainly get the message across and solve the problem. However, a single merchant can't make this work. A municipality or state needs to outlaw the free distribution of plastic bags. That would either mean a return to paper, or adoption of the IKEA approach.

Prompting me to write:

Ikea is the correct solution. But as you point out an occasional responsible retailer or an occasional responsible consumer will not solve the problem. It is a societal issue and must be dealt with societally. Only a tax on disposable bags, both plastic and paper of at least 25¢ and preferably $1.- will begin to deal with this issue.

Elaine Krigsman of Montclair, NJ prompted this exchange by writing:

While I agree with you that a tax would be the best way to solve this problem, the chances of this actually happening are slim to none.  We can't even get a gas tax passed here in NJ that would begin to address our needs.  Stores should just stop providing free plastic or paper bags, as they do in many countries in Europe.  IKEA's system is not original but it is effective, even if it is just one customer at a time.  

Which caused me to reply:

Unfortunately, the likelihood of stores no longer "providing free plastic or paper bags, as they do in many countries in Europe” is also slim to none. First it is up to us to act individually to use re-usable bags, and second we need to keep working to achieve societal and political goals even if at the moment they seem out of reach. The stupidity of not raising the gas tax is beyond compare, as was the failure of Christie to allow new rail tunnels between NJ & NY even though the Federal government would pay for it, a project that was first proposed by Christie supporter, former mayor, Giuliani.

And then Christie won by a landslide. 

Simply throwing up ones hands accomplishes nothing.

Prompting this final concurrence:

I agree with you on all points!

And finally Joanna Cooke of Jackson, Wyoming expressed this view:

I haven't commented in years, largely because I feel way out of my league in terms of understanding the issues you've explored. But this one I have an opinion on. We regularly use cloth bags--some have been in use over eight years at this point. I also reuse the plastic bags for when we get things in bulk for new bulk purchases. Whatever bags we do use, plastic or paper, get reused in some fashion, for example, for garbage in the bathrooms (and I often simply empty out those bags and use them again for the same purpose).  I support both plastic and paper bags having fees, but do wonder about the economic concerns and what the best forms of education are on this topic. Our local natural food store gives a credit that can be donated to local community foundations, and even the box grocery stores give some kind of credit, a few cents per bag or something. I support both plastic and paper bags having fees, but do wonder about the economic concerns and what the best forms of education are on this topic (emphasis added).

To which I replied:

Allow me to address some of the concerns you raise. You "wonder about the economic concerns." I don’t see that there are any realistic ones. Even a dollar tax on each bag would not cause people to shop less, but it would, in most cases, cause them to bring their own bags.

As for your question as to "what the best forms of education are on this topic” I really don’t know. The environmental community must spend resources on education. Unfortunately they have not invested very much on this issue. I do not have any influence in this community. Those who do should use that influence to get them to speak out more aggressively.

The main obstacle to imposing a significant tax on disposable bags is the general aversion of the public to all taxes and the antigovernment mood created by Reagan’s slogan, “Government is not the solution, Government is the problem” and the anarchic anti-societal attitudes that have arisen from it, particularly within the Tea party, but within the Republican party in general. They have a no lose strategy, because the more outrageous their behavior in the councils of government, the more they bring government into disrepute, which strengthens their anarchic and anti societal agenda. Since the public instinctively hates taxes, this too feeds into their opposition to all tax increases and supports their constant call for fewer taxes until in the words of, Grover Norquist, "I just want to shrink it (the government) down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

Politics has its cycles, and in time the public may recognize that without government to regulate our food and drug supplies, to protect our environment and to guarantee competition, etc. capitalism cannot function.

I will be happy to entertain any further comments anyone else cares to make.

Government at its Worst and at its Best

I have said heretofore that I am no longer willing to take the time to write for my blog because my audience is at best unresponsive and at worst non-existent.

However, I have also decided that what I have written for other venues should also see the light of day on my blog. So here goes!

Christiegate

Living in the town that is the subject of this scandal it has been covered rather well by our local newspaper. One of the articles prompted me to write a Letter to the Editor, as follows:

The continuing “Bridgegate Scandal” (Suburbanite January 17, 2014) can only remind us of the original scandal after which all other scandals have been named. While the two are different in many ways, they have some important features in common.  

In both cases the scandal broke right after the incumbent won re-election by an overwhelming majority. In both cases the incumbent claimed ignorance, and was quick to fire underlings.  

Nixon declared, “I am not a crook!” Christie declared: “I am not a bully”.  

In both cases the facts kept developing. In the case of Christie they too are just developing, with the mayor off Jersey City coming forth with how his refusal to endorse Christie led to “purposeful stalling of a pension reform bill that would have benefited his city", and the mayor of Hoboken charging that Christie withheld federal storm relief funds from her city to punish her.  

Whether Christie knew the details of what his aids were doing is irrelevant. As anyone who has worked in either the private or the public sector knows, underlings know and act upon what they perceive the boss wants. Clearly this is what they understood the boss wanted.  

Punishing a political adversary is part of the political game, but punishing the citizens of a town for the perceived sins of its elected official is beyond the pale. It is time for Governor Christie to take responsibility and resign. Failing that, serious consideration to impeachment is in order.

This appeared directly under a cartoon on the subject, inexorably linking the two, which I reproduce here:

This represents government at its worst!

On the other hand the importance of government at its best is not to be overlooked, as the New York Times article entitled “Innovation,Optimism And Jobs” seemed to do, prompting me to write a Letter to the Editor, which was not published. The letter follows:

To the Editor:

 Joe Nocera’s column “Innovation, Optimism And Jobs" is misleading, not by commission, but by omission, or at least in emphasis. 

 In discussing technological change and whether it will help or hinder job creation, he barely touches upon the vital role that government plays. While, in talking about past technological innovation, he does mention, “governmental change:” and that “Factories used children as workers, until governments passed child labor laws” and that “free education became the law of the land” but he fails to point out what a vital role government played. 

 The fact is that innovation did wipe out an enormous number of jobs. Government kept such dwindling jobs from devastating huge swath of the population by forcing job sharing. People used to work eighty hours a week and more, but as fewer workers were needed government forced the fewer jobs to be widely shared, not only by eliminating child labor, but by passing laws limiting the number of hours to be worked to 40 hours and mandating extra compensation for hours above that, while at the same time making sure that lower paid workers would not have their income cut as their hours dwindled, by setting a floor to how much compensation could be reduced, i.e. the minimum wage. 

 If we are to meet the challenge from the new efficiencies, we must once again reduce the number of hours worked, follow through on free education by making college free, and in general improve our educational system by investing in our human capital. 

 Earlier innovation would not have benefited the broader population without government intervention, and neither will the present one.

Comments, Corrections and/or Questions are welcome.

Contraception, Abortion and Komen

I think most of my readers are by now well aware of the storm that was raised by the decision of Susan G. Komen to defund Planned Parenthood. What they may not be aware of, is that this is a very small part of what can only be dubbed as the war on women. What used to be the Republican Party’s determination to end the right of women to have control over their own bodies, has now descended into an attempt to turn abortion into a capital crime, for logically, if human life indeed begins at conception, which was never the concept before, then the taking of that life is a capital crime, and it turns the millions of women who have always turned to abortion to end an unwanted pregnancy into “murderers."

           

But what has now happened is that they are no longer content to stop at trying to end abortion under any and all circumstances, including rape and incest, and even under conditions where the life of the mother is endangered. They are now determined to take away from both men and women the right to contraception. The Komen incident is but the tip of the iceberg.

           

This prompted me to write a Letter to the Editor of my local newspaper and to the Star Ledger. My local newspaper will print it. The Star Ledger will not. I did not write to the New York Times because I have given up on their ever printing one of my letters again. 

The letter I wrote follows:

The Arab Spring has arrived in the US. We have now discovered that we, the people of the US have people power, no less potent than that wielded by the people in Arab lands.

           

When Congress was about to restrict our freedom on the Internet, we followed the lead of Facebook and Google and others and protested. The legislation was withdrawn almost immediately.

           

When we discovered that insider trading was rampant among our Congressmen and Senators, we rose up and Congress is about to pass legislation that may put a stop to it.

           

Most recently we discovered that Komen, under pressure from right wing sources opposed not only to abortion, but to all forms of birth control, had defunded Planned Parenthood to the tune of $680,000, we rose up and Komen reversed course and refunded Planned Parenthood.

           

But we appear to have missed out. For this defunding has been going on for a long time and it appears to have gone under the radar. Planned Parenthood spends a $1 billion a year providing services to poor and middle class women throughout the US. $487 million, or 46 percent of its revenue, came from government health service grants and reimbursements. But defunding throughout the US is under way.

           

New Jersey, under the leadership of our Governor, Chris Christie, defunded Planned Parenthood completely to the tune of  $7.4 million, far more than the $680,000 that might have been lost through Komen defunding. These services included life saving cancer screenings, birth control, prevention, and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), breast health services and pap tests, and was not used for abortion services. In 2009, this funding helped support services for over 136,000 patients including over 70,000 breast exams and 65,000 pap tests, but there was no outcry.

           

Other states have taken similar action and have defunded Planned Parenthood to the tune of $80 million, far, far more than the $680,000 that might have been lost through Komen defunding, but there was no outcry

           

Last year, the House GOP voted to zero out the entire $317,000,000 Title X family planning budget - including about $75 million that would have gone to Planned Parenthood's preventative care and treatment programs for low-income women, far more than the $680,000 that might have been lost through Komen defunding, but there was no outcry.

Deciding that this plan wasn't disastrous enough, the House also passed an amendment to eliminate all federal funding to Planned Parenthood, an estimated total of $363 million, far more than the $680,000 that might have been lost through Komen defunding. Much of this goes to care for the Medicaid patients who make up almost half of Planned Parenthood's clientele. Fortunately, the bills died in the Senate, where Democrats are in control. The amount that Komen would have cut from Planned Parenthood's women's healthcare was significant-- but the amount that House Republicans were prepared to cut was 500 times larger, but there was no outcry.

           

Now that we know that we have people power, isn’t it time for us to be heard.

           

Comments are welcome and will be distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

Letters to the Editor (Continued)

On April 26, 2010 I posted a commnentary to my blog entitled Letters to the Editor in which I set forth a number of letters which I wrote. I concluded that post with the comment:

"In order to keep this post within a reasonable length, I will not set forth any more Letters to the Editor now, but instead will publish additional letters, in a future post.

This will serve to set forth the remaining Letters to the Editors which I have written this year. I very much hope that readers will let me have their views on any or as many as they care to. 

On January 3, 2010 I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the New York Times in response to an editorial entitled: "Super Bowl Censorship ."

"I find your editorial, “Super Bowl Censorship” (Editorial, January 30) puzzling to say the least. You make it appear that critics of the ad by 'Focus on the Family' (which is anti- choice) are seeking censorship, when what they are seeking is the opposite. The Superbowl has consistently refused ads advocating Choice. All that is wanted, nay demanded, is an even playing field. Either ads on both sides of the issue should be run or on neither side. One would think that the Times would support this as well."

It was not published.

On March 19, 2010 I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Fort Lee Suburbanite in response to an editorial entitled: "Christie’s Cuts Just Keep Coming."

"As You Sow So Shall You Reap (your view “Christie’s cuts just keep coming”). The voters of NJ in their wisdom elected Christie governor and now they are reaping the consequences.

"As your editorial points out Christie is following his party’s dogma, of no new taxes, no matter what. That is all fine and good if there were no consequences. But as you point out, it is a deceptive bargain, because localities have bills to pay and services to provide, and cuts in state aid to localities proposed by Christie means that property taxes in localities will have to increase, or garbage collections will have to be reduced, or services to seniors will have to be cut, or food banks will have to shut down, or libraries will have to close, or schools will end up with larger classes, or other services will be cut, or a combination of the above.

"None of us like paying taxes, but unlike Christie we understand our obligations to our kids, to our seniors and to our poor, particularly during these hard times.

"Yes, the state has a budget deficit to close, which has been growing ever since Republican Governor Christie Whitman cut taxes on the wealthy by 30%, and those who expect this can now be dealt with without serious cuts in expenditures are unrealistic, but to balance the budget at the expense of localities, our educational system, and our most vulnerable citizens, without asking for any sacrifice from our wealthiest, is not only callous, it is a disservice to the future of our state and nation."

It was published the following Friday.

On March 27, 2010 I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Fort Lee Suburbanite in response to an editorial entitled: "Don’t Lower The Cap So Sharply Yet.” as follows:

"Last week I praised your editorial criticizing Governor Christie’s cuts of aid to localities, but I was surprised and appalled at your editorial of March 26 entitled 'Don’t lower the cap so sharply yet.' This totally contradicts your editorial of the previous week, where you expressed concern about cuts in services including police, fire, garbage collection, schools, and libraries. Such cuts are to some extent mandated by the Governor’s proposed cuts in aid, but at least it would have left each locality the option of increasing taxes on its own citizens, if it wanted to maintain services at current levels.

"The idea that the state mandates how much each locality may tax its own citizens flies in the face of the principle of home rule, and it is the very antithesis of Democracy. I am sure that there may be many towns that would prefer to cut services rather than increase taxes, but that is a choice that should be for them to make, not for the state to mandate. Lowering the cap on how much taxes may be increased to make up for cuts in state aid does not make any sense, and your editorial’s plea not to 'lower the cap so sharply yet' ignores that it should not be lowered at all. As a matter of fact, caps should be abolished. Every community should have the right to determine for itself the level of services it wants, and the how much it is willing to pay for those services.

"The state’s function is to help the communities with aid, not to dictate how they should govern themselves.

"There is one positive thing the governor could do, and that is to impose a 25¢ tax on all plastic bags dispensed by stores. This would raise much needed revenue toward closing the deficit, and at the same time reduce the number of plastic bags that now pollute our landscape, overwhelm our garbage dumps, and kill untold numbers of marine animals."

It was published the following Friday.

On April 8, 2010 I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Fort Lee Suburbanite reading as follows:

"Governor Christie’s state budget proposes the elimination of state funding for family planning services. Last year’s, budget allocated
over $7 million for reproductive health care services including routine gynecological exams; basic contraception; screening for high blood pressure, anemia and diabetes; breast and cervical cancer screening and education; screening and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STIs); HIV testing and counseling; pre-pregnancy counseling and education; pregnancy testing and confirmation; and prenatal care and/or referral. State dollars are not used for abortion services.

"Gov. Christie’s budget cuts hurt women and costs the state money, Investing in women’s health is not only good policy, it saves money. Each dollar spent to provide family planning services saves an estimated $4 that would otherwise be spent in Medicaid-related costs. So, for the money saved by eliminating state funding for women’s health care, the state will pay at least $28 million more in Medicaid expenses.

"The best way to prevent unintended pregnancies and promote healthy families is to invest in family planning, and ensure that women and families have access to affordable, quality reproductive health care. Instead, Governor Christie wants to completely eliminate critical funds that reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. New Jersey already ranks 36th in public support for reproductive health care.

"Last year, New Jersey's family planning health centers provided:

* Reproductive and preventive health care to 126,903 women and 9461 men;

* Breast examinations to 70,506 women with 4039 referrals for further evaluation;

* Pap tests to 65,252 women;

* HIV tests to 27,386 women and men;

* 57,027 tests for Gonorrhea, 7727 tests for Syphilis and 66,035 tests for Chlamydia;

* Services to 97,129 women and men without health insurance.

"In 2009, New Jersey family planning health centers helped prevent: 39,782 unintended pregnancies, and 18,896 abortions. As a result, New Jersey saved well over $150,000,000 in one year."

It was published the following Friday.

On April 17, 2010 I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Fort Lee Suburbanite reading as follows:

"Last Tuesday some of us went to the polls to vote for a school board and to approve or disapprove the school budget. This is supposed to be Democracy at work, but in fact it is a farce, and just another example of the bad way we govern ourselves in New Jersey.

"What percentage actually voted is not known at this point. But if the past is any guide, it is usually around 14 percent according to the Herald News of December 14, 2009. That hardly makes the result representative.

"And it is no wonder, since we know next to nothing about the candidates or the school budget we are supposed to approve or disapprove. In this years Fort Lee election we had four candidates for three slots, hardly what I would call a hotly contested election, and one of them isn’t even out of high school yet. Don’t we even have minimum qualifications for candidates? Do we even know whether members of the Board are paid or are volunteers?

"When we have elections on the federal or state level, the media gives us information on the candidates. We have editorial endorsements, have  debates, have party affiliations etc. We have at least a modicum of information to help us make our choices. But when it comes to local elections the paucity of information on the candidates and the issues makes intelligent voting all but impossible, and worse makes it possible for a small  determined group, often with a radical agenda, to seize control.

"It is time we stopped this farce and made the Board of Education responsible to the mayor, who we know at least a little about when we vote. More elections do not make for more responsible or more responsive governance. It does just the opposite."

On April 23, 2010 I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Fort Lee Suburbanite reading as follows:

"In previous Letters to the Editor I pointed out that Governor Christie is following his party’s dogma, of no new state taxes, no matter what, but ignores the consequences of that policy. It of course means cuts in aid to localities. I pointed out, as in fact your own editorial did, that property taxes in localities would have to increase and vital services would have to be cut. Now some of the data becomes available. The state cut to Fort Lee schools will be 88%. As a result Fort Lee Public Schools have announced a 4.9% increase in our property tax and a cut in the school budget of 8.6%, and that does not include the increase in taxes by the town or the cut in town services.

"But figures are cold. What does it mean in jobs and services? The school system will phase out

*teaching French and Greek

*deferring purchase of textbooks and instructional technology

*Eliminating subsidies for band camp *Charging students for sports, clubs, plays, and music.

"It forces the layoff of much needed staff in our schools to the tune of 55 teaching and 27 custodial positions.

"They talk about generational theft. This is the worst kind of generational theft.

"While there is no room here for figures as they apply to Leonia and Edgewater they are equally dire, as is the impact on localities throughout the state.

"Property tax rebates are disappearing, which amounts to another tax hike, town taxes will go up, and we haven’t yet seen the cuts in services in police, health and other town services, which we rely on.

"But Christie couldn’t care less. As long as he protects the income running in the millions, and even in the billions of the fat cats who are his friends and enabler, he has accomplished his objectives."

It was published today.

John Corzine for Governor of New Jersey.

I am going to vote for John Corzine for governor of NJ on Tuesday November 3 for many reasons, but the most important is that he is not a Republican, and that a vote for him is the only vote that will prevent the election of the Republican candidate.

There was a time when I might have voted for a Republican. There was a time when there were some decent Republicans around, like Senator Case of New Jersey, or Senator Javits of New York, or Senator Morse of Oregon. But the big tent Republican Party is no more. They have systematically purged all who do not fit the ideological bent of the party.

To be sure the Republican Party had its genesis in the election of Lincoln and the abolition of slavery, but by 1877 less than a dozen years after the martyrdom of Lincoln, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes sold out the newly freed slaves in order to gain the Presidency. The website Travel and History put it this way: “To the four million former slaves in the South, the Compromise of 1877 was the ‘Great Betrayal.’ Republican efforts to assure civil rights for the blacks were totally abandoned. The white population of the country was anxious to get on with making money. No serious move to restore the rights of black citizens would surface again until the 1950s.”

 Thereafter, Republicans and their big business allies dominated the political landscape with such “luminaries” as Chester A. Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover representing a dominant Republican Party. Lincoln must have been revolving in his grave. This sorry lot were were interrupted only by the ascendancy of Teddy Roosevelt, who became the only distinguished Republican during this whole era leading up to the Great Depression, and he was never the choice of the Republican establishment. After being elected governor of New York, he was kicked up to the Vice-Presidency to get him out of the way, and much to the dismay of the Republican establishment became President upon the death of McKinley. The Great Depression was not the sole fault of Herbert Hoover. It became inevitable through the policies of three Republican Presidents from 1921 to 1929, eight years, which in many ways resembled the eight years of the Bush Administration. Fortunately for the US and indeed the world, Bush who was only the head of the monster, realized in the last year of his Administration that we were facing a potential repeat of 1929 and took drastic steps to avert disaster, which true to form were opposed by the majority of his party. Also happily, while it took four years between the onset of the Depression in 1929 and the inaugural of FDR, it took only one year between the beginning of the recession of 2008 and the inauguration of Barack Obama in 2009.

To be sure the Democratic Party for most of the years after the Civil War was identified as the party of racism and the Republican party continued to bask in the image of Lincoln, but this was the result of the Democratic Party being a House divided against itself, with the part from the old South hanging on to the vestiges of slavery, and the Northern part becoming increasingly the party of emancipation and Civil Rights. Such Democratic Senators as Bilbo and Eastland of Mississippi, and Richard Russell of Georgia along with Strom Thurmond of South Carolina were determined to hold onto the quasi slavery that continued in the Unreconstructed South while northern Democrats like Lehman of New York and Humphrey of Minnesota worked for reform. Thurmond even ran for President in 1948 on the Dixiecrat Party. But the Nixon Administration’s Southern strategy changed that and invited such segregationists into the Republican fold. Thurmond became a Republican in 1964, and as late as 2002 the Republican about to become majority leader of the Senate, Trent Lott, hailed Thurmond with these remarks, “I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either." See The Nation for more background on Lott.

The Republican Party gave us McCarthyism in the 1950’s and torture in this century and even the relatively benign Eisenhower ordered the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected President of Iran, Mohammed Mosedegh, and installed the hated Shah, which was directly responsible for the ascendancy of the present theocracy in that poor country.

   But what of New Jersey? The Star Ledger endorsed the 3rd party candidate, Chris Daggett, but the latest poll shows Daggatt garnering 9% of the vote, so a vote for Daggett is a wasted vote. The Republican candidate, Chris Christie, stands for all the Bromides of the National Republican party. He would be a disaster for the state and his election would be interpreted as a repudiation of Obama. His main attack on Corzine is that NJ has the highest property taxes in the nation, but he forgets to tell us that neither the governor nor the State legislature has any control over property taxes, which are levied by the many towns and villages that dot New Jersey, and that New Jersey had the highest property taxes long before Corzine became governor. He tells us about the high unemployment rate of New Jersey, but he forgets to tell us that it is no higher than the National average and is the product of the Republican induced recession. He also forgets to tell us that New Jersey has the 2nd highest personal income per capita in the nation. As for the income tax, which is under State jurisdiction, New Jersey is 23rd in tax revenue as a % of personal income.

There are only two ways to reduce property taxes. One, with which I fully agree, was suggested by the NJ Chamber of Commerce in a Letter to the Editor in August of 2006. They wrote, “Property tax reform will only happen when there is consolidation of some of the more than 1,000 layers of government that currently have taxing authority” but only Governor Corzine of the three candidates has made any proposal that would further this objective. He has suggested that money should be put into a fund to incentivize municipal and school consolidations. This is the only sound idea on the table.

The other is to raise the income tax and finance our schools with those taxes. Since the main purpose for local property taxes is to fund local schools, changing the funding formula so that schools are funded by state taxes would lower property taxes and remove a major inequity in school funding.

But the biggest problem that New Jersey faces is its huge deficit, which is the direct result of the popular but shortsighted Republican penchant for tax cuts. When Republican Christie Whitman became governor in 1994, she cut the income tax by 1/3 but never found the savings that would offset this loss of revenue. The result, NJ is saddled with huge debt, the interest that goes with it, and no end in sight. Christie promises more of the same, but like all Republicans will not say what programs he will cut, or how he will finance the debt. If Christie is elected NJ will not long continue to be second in per capita income.