NJ Business Matters: The Blog of the CIANJ

Only in New Jersey: Adding Costs and Paperwork to Cleaning the Environment

Your trusty blogger joins you from the road this morning, as we await a presentation by Dr. Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace) on ways to improve our environment while producing the energy necessary to meet our 21st Century needs.

Of other environmental importance is a story in today's Record regarding proposed new Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regulations that would create additional notification requirements for site cleanup. The proposed new mandate states that those cleaning the site must notify neighbors within 200' of the property about the removal of contaminated materials in very specific ways. It's another idea that seems benign on the surface, but will actually make it more difficult to clean contaminated sites and therefore lessen the probability they will be cleaned.

Our friends at the Sierra Club ask,

In California, for instance, remediators must notify the public with a 4-foot-by-8-foot sign, he said. "Why are the businesses complaining?" he said. "What are they trying to hide? People should know what's happening in the neighborhood."

It's tough to have an honest discussion when one group's default position is that businesses must be attempting to hide something. Remember, these are the same businesses who clean contaminated areas with regularity.

The DEP already has adequate notification requirements. To make businesses notify those who are unaffected by the cleanup (in their native languages) goes beyond what is necessary. Then, if there are public places within 200', a business would have to notify the users of an area such as a park that something is about to be cleaned (again, in the native language of park goers). Furthermore, the regulations require notification for those within 200' of the property line, not 200' of the clean-up area. A large property with a small clean-up would have to notify those well outside the boundary of any potential impact.

CIANJ members have weighed in and continue to do so with the Department of Environmental Protection. Sometimes, issues are more complicated than the rhetorical questions asked about them.

Garden Statism

The Wall Street Journal highlights New Jersey as an example of what has gone wrong with the much-discussed State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). All two of you regular blog readers know that SCHIP has provided a number of perverse incentives for states. As we send money to Washington, only to have it returned with strings attached, states have used the money to subsidize insurance for more than children in families considered to be poor but earning too much to qualify for Medicaid. Remember that up to 60 percent of children eligible for SCHIP already had private insurance at the time of its creation.

Nevertheless, states such as New Jersey have begun to subsidize insurance for a larger pool than those poor children. The Journal editorial ($ubscription required) points out that in New Jersey,

• The State CHILDREN'S Health Insurance Program in NJ covers adults with and without children.
• New Jersey's enrollment increases annually, without lowering the percentage of uninsured children.

Here at CIANJ we've got a fairly simple approach - to create an atmosphere whereby everyone who wants health insurance can afford it. Unfortunately, the legislature passes mandates on what insurance companies must cover as part of their basic benefits package. You may remember that earlier this year, the legislature required insurance companies to provide virtually unlimited benefits for non-biologically based mental disorders and substance abuse (versus the 30 days of inpatient and 20 days of outpatient care already being provided). That may be well intended, but it will also price 5,000 New Jerseyans out of the insurance market. And we haven't even begun to discuss our litigative environment that forced a drug manufacturer to spend its resources in successfully preventing a union from joining a class action lawsuit.

The intent of SCHIP is not being carried out in practice and states have no incentive to alter their behavior. Until then, Congress should reject its expansion.

The Consequences of Expanding SCHIP

This week, the House of Representatives will further consider expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The program is designed to subsidize children's health insurance for those in families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid.

On the surface, who could be opposed to such a program? Today, the CATO Institute's Michael Cannon lays out the case for allowing it to expire given SCHIP's overuse in the states and it being another example taxpayers sending money to Washington, only to have it returned with strings attached. Then there's the matter of the increase on cigarette taxes which would require 22 million new smokers by 2017 to keep the program operational. Talk about perverse incentives.

More perverse incentives are found when one realizes that most of the children who enroll is SCHIP already have private insurance. As Cannon notes,

SCHIP casts a much wider net than suggested by its stated purpose - namely, providing coverage to children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid (which ostensibly serves only the poor) but still can't afford private insurance. According to a study in the journal Inquiry, 60 percent of children eligible for SCHIP already had private coverage when the program was created.

According to the federal Department of Health and Human Services, "About 45 percent of American children are currently enrolled in either Medicaid or SCHIP."

Inevitably, many families simply substitute SCHIP for private coverage. Economists Jonathan Gruber of MIT and Kosali Simon of Cornell University find that, in effect, when government expands eligibility for SCHIP and Medicaid, six out of every 10 people added to the rolls already have private coverage. Only four in 10 were previously uninsured.

In other words, SCHIP and Medicaid cover four previously uninsured Americans for the price of 10. That's a bad deal even by government standards. Yet Republicans want to renew it, and Democrats think it's an absolute bargain. They want to enroll more than 70 percent of all children.

The perverse incentives continue. Because SCHIP and Medicaid pay drug manufacturers a fraction of what is charged to private entities, the manufacturers must raise the prices on everyone to sustain profitability - that results in an increase of as much as 13%.

Cannon's full column is available here.

All told this program is bad medicine. There isn't the political will to eliminate it, but its expansion should be halted on the House floor.

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions "Not Possible" Without Nuclear Power

Our friends at the New Jersey Affordable Clean Reliable Energy Coalition have posted the latest Polestar Applied Technology/Nuclear Energy Institute analysis of New Jersey's future energy needs to their website.

The report details the future of energy in the state, to determine the necessity of relicensing existing nuclear plants or building new ones. The report estimates a demand increase of between 24% and 44% depending on our growth by 2019. Given that, it concludes,

It is not possible to achieve the desired CO2 emission reductions without nuclear power. Even with unprecedented levels of new renewable generating capacity, increased reliance on natural gas and premature closure of oil- and coal-fueled plants, it is necessary to renew the licenses of Oyster Creek and Salem 1 just to meet the RGGI limit in the low-growth scenario. In the high-growth scenario, achieving the RGGI goal will require license renewal of existing nuclear capacity plus the addition of a new nuclear plant.

To view the findings in greater detail, click here.

The Envelope Please...

This morning, the Private Enterprise Political Action Committee (PENPAC) released its list of endorsed candidates for the 2007 legislative elections. Following a lengthy process of questionnaires, interviews and voting analysis, the PAC has chosen to support the following candidates in their quest to make New Jersey an even greater place to live, learn and do business.

We'll link to the PENPAC press release which is full of pithy quotes, but the complete list of endorsed candidates is pasted below.

District 2

Senator James J. McCullough (R)

District 3

Assembly Candidate Phil Donohue (R)

District 7

Senator Diane Allen (R)

Assembly Candidate Brian Propp (R)

Assembly Candidate Nancy Griffin (R)

District 8

Assemblyman and Senate Candidate Francis L. Bodine (D)

Assembly Candidate Dawn Marie Addiego (R)

District 12

Assemblywoman and Senate Candidate Jennifer Beck (R)

Assembly Candidate Declan O’Scanlon, Jr. (R)

Assembly Candidate Caroline Casagrande (R)

District 13

Senator Joseph Kyrillos (R)

Assemblyman Sam Thompson (R)

Assemblywoman Amy Handlin (R)

District 14

Assembly Candidate Adam R. Bushman (R)

District 16

Assemblyman and Senate Candidate Christopher “Kip” Bateman (R)

Assemblyman Peter Biondi (R)

Assembly Candidate Denise Coyle (R)

District 17

Assemblyman Upendra Chivukula (D)

District 18

Assembly Candidate Joseph Sinagra (R)

District 20

Senator Raymond J. Lesniak (D)

District 21

Senator Thomas Kean, Jr. (R)

Assemblyman Eric Munoz (R)

Assemblyman Jon Bramnick (R)

District 22

Assembly Candidate Robert Gatto (R)

District 23

Senate Minority Leader Leonard Lance (R)

Assemblyman Michael Doherty (R)

Assemblywoman Marcia A. Karrow (R)

District 24

Senate Candidate Steven Oroho (R)

Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose (R)

Assembly Candidate Gary R. Chiusano

District 25

Senator Anthony Bucco (R)

Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll (R)

Assemblyman Richard Merkt (R)

District 26

Assemblyman and Senate Candidate Joe Pennacchio (R)

Assembly Minority Leader Alex DeCroce (R)

District 30

Senator Robert W. Singer (R)

Assemblyman Joseph R. Malone III (R)

Assemblyman Ronald S. Dancer (R)

District 36

Senator Paul Sarlo (D)

Assemblyman Gary S. Schaer (D)

District 38

Senate Candidate Robert Colletti (R)

Assembly Candidate John Driscoll, Jr. (R)

District 39

Senator Gerald Cardinale (R)

Assemblyman John E. Rooney (R)

Assemblywoman Charlotte Vandervalk (R)

District 40

Assemblyman and Senate Candidate Kevin J. O’Toole (R)

Assemblyman David C. Russo (R)

A Voice of Reason on the West Coast

Good news for everyone who exhales and therefore emits CO2 - the California Attorney General is going to have a tougher time suing you.

Yesterday, a federal judge tossed a lawsuit brought about by the AG which sought monetary damages from large automakers for emitting greenhouse gases.

(US District Judge Martin) Jenkins' primary concern was the difficulty of sorting through what he called "a thicket" of issues that are best left to the political and scientific arena. In the ruling, Jenkins pointed out that the federal courts are ill-equipped to evaluate how much of a factor auto emissions may be in global warming.

"The court is left without guidance in determining what is an unreasonable contribution to the sum of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere," the judge said, " or in determining who should bear the costs associated with global climate change"

Judicial restraint in what would obviously become a political situation. It's refreshing to see every so often.

 

The IBEW Joins NJACRE

A hat tip to IBEW and Local Union 1289 for joining the New Jersey Affordable Clean Reliable Energy Coalition (NJACRE). Both you regular blog readers know that NJACRE seeks to raise awareness about clean energy, including nuclear power, for the purpose of meeting New Jersey's growing energy demands in a way that will reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions while keeping our economy strong.

Remember that Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore believes there is 'no way' New Jersey can meet the emissions goals set forth by Executive Order 54 or the Global Warming Response Act (or the forthcoming Energy Master Plan) without the relicensing of New Jersey's nuclear facilities. Video of that testimonial is available here.

NJACRE's press release quotes IBEW leadership as declaring,

“The men and women of the NJ IBEW are joining NJ ACRE to support the Coalition’s mission to educate the public about the need to keep existing nuclear power plants, like Oyster Creek, operational,” said Chip Gerrity, president of the NJ IBEW.

Ed Stroup, president of IBEW LU 1289, added that, “Our 200 plus members who work at Oyster Creek know first hand that it is a safe, well-managed facility and are keenly aware that nuclear energy helps maintain a strong economy, a clean environment and affordable energy for New Jersey residents and businesses.”

CIANJ is proud to be a member of NJACRE and to help counter myths that have become conventional wisdom among some in the MSM.

Restricting Access to Our Own Resources - LNG Island Edition

The Star-Ledger today supports further exploration of constructing an off-shore Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Island off the coast of Sandy Hook. The LNG facility would serve as a way to bring LNG to the Northeast in order to power and heat homes and businesses through an option seen as more environmentally friendly than coal or oil. Of course, if you cannot get the LNG to those homes or businesses, then the trillions of cubic feet which sit off our coastline become useless and energy independence becomes little more than campaign fodder.

In April, when no one was actually reading the blog, we discussed BP's plan to build an LNG terminal in the Delaware River Basin which would provide the equivalent of roughly 15% of the region's power supply. Regarding the possibility of an island 20 miles off the coast of Sandy Hook, the Ledger reminds us,

Ships would deliver LNG every three days or so, and the $1.7 billion installation would then convert the liquid back to a gas and pipe it to shore to supply New Jersey, New York and the Northeast.

Some environmental groups and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-6th Dist.) are already insisting the dangers of this proposal outweigh the potential benefits from a greater natural gas sup ply and the consequent prospect of lower prices for residential and business customers.

LNG importation does raise serious and legitimate concerns. Tankers and the island plant could be tempting targets for terrorists. A fire or explosion, whether deliberate or accidental, would create a massive fireball. Construction of the island could threaten the ocean ecosystem.

But Atlantic Sea Island's proposal merits more than a reflexive rejection. It deserves a thorough scientific and political review before any decision is made to approve or sink it.

The knee-jerk reaction in opposition to the construction of any new plant does not help our policy situation: we have growing energy demand with no way to meet it without new sources. Limiting access to our own (clean) natural resources would make it pretty cold and dark around here; especially given the opposition from enviros to clean natural gas and to emission free nuclear power.

BPU Approves Solar Energy Program with $6 Bil. Price Tag

The Board of Public Utilities (BPU) yesterday approved a plan to promote solar energy in the Garden State. The Star-Ledger reports on the cost of the program, which has a goal of having 2% of New Jersey's energy generated via solar power.

[T]he program, described by advocates as one of most far-reaching solar-energy initiatives in any state, has alarmed some consumer advocates and manufacturing interests who fear it will saddle customers with even higher bills in a state that traditionally has had some of the most expensive energy rates in the country.

The program, if kept in place, could cost up to $6 billion by 2036, according to state officials.

"Is this a perfect program? No," said BPU Commissioner Joseph Fiordaliso, who chaired many of the meetings that led to the plan. "It's really a beginning, a step forward to propelling New Jersey to the forefront of solar energy."

Fiordaliso pledged the program would not be a bottomless pit where government money is wasted to achieve the 2 percent goal.

"If prices don't drop, we'll re-evaluate the program as we go along," he said.

Solar power offers the opportunity to generate electricity while producing no emissions, and therefore may be a worthy avenue to further explore. But $6 billion for 2% of our energy?

Remember, nuclear power already generates 52% of New Jersey's electricity while producing no emissions. The two avenues for reducing greenhouse gases do not need to be mutually exclusive, but some of our environmentalist friends need to recognize that point as well. Remember that point during the ongoing debate surrounding relicensing of the Oyster Creek Generating Station, which if it shut down would drive energy prices up by another $190 million.

Full article available here. 

Crisis? Maybe; Enough to Shun the Unions? Not Even Close

About two hours ago, the Senate was faced with a choice offered to them by Sen. DeMint (R-SC). The Davis-Bacon Act requires that federal highway projects pay the prevailing union wage to workers. Students of the free market will tell you that the prevailing wage is an artificial price control and meets at a point much higher than the intersection of the supply and demand curves. The net results are costs (to us) of 5% to 38% higher than they would be if Davis-Bacon did not exist. Of course this also boosts union dues, but the bosses will tell you that's just a side-effect.

Under certain circumstances (such as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina), Davis-Bacon has been suspended. Today, Senator DeMint offered an amendment to the highway bill which would suspend prevailing wage requirements for bridges deemed structurally deficient.

The motion to table, effectively killing the amendment, passed 56-37. The roll call is found here, including Senators Menendez and Lautenberg's votes against more affordable bridge repair and for unions. Every time you hear a member of the Senate call for more spending to repair infrastructure, check back here to see how they voted on Sen. DeMint's amendment.

Another $800 Million in School Construction Money Borrowed

New Jersey's Economic Development Authority has approved the borrowing of another $800 million in school construction money, adding to the $8 + billion already borrowed and the $33.7 billion New Jersey already owes.

The NJ Schools Development Authority is the successor of the state's School Construction Corporation. That's the same School Construction Corporation which managed to complete barely a third of its assigned projects, leaving buildings unfinished as a lack of oversight cost the state's taxpayers billions of dollars.

Today's Star-Ledger reports,

The $800 million loan, endorsed unanimously by the New Jersey Economic Development Authority at its regular meeting in Trenton, will cover the school program's expenses for about eight months, officials projected.

When the 30-year bonds are is sued early next month, the school program will have used up all but $1.7 billion of the $8.6 billion that lawmakers authorized it to borrow. Officials of the New Jersey Schools Development Authority, the panel in charge of the school building program, earlier this year identified 27 ongoing school projects that they say will consume the balance of the funds allocated to the program.

The authority has asked lawmakers to authorize another $3.25 billion in borrowing to enable construction to continue on other projects that have been suspended for lack of funds.

Both you regular blog readers will remember that last week, the state approved $1.25 billion in borrowing for highway construction and maintenance.

The Need to Fix FMLA

When legislators and candidates are out pandering asking for your vote this fall, one of the issues they are certain to bring up is Paid Family Leave. Regular blog readers already know the NJ proposal would allow employees from companies of all sizes up to 10 weeks of paid time off to care for a sick family member, newborn or newly adopted child. Remember that NJ is already one of about six states to offer paid maternity leave, which would be in addition to PFL and New Jersey would become only the second state with a paid leave mandate.

To that mix, add the problems with the federal government's unpaid leave mandate, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). In today's edition of Forbes on-line, National Association of Manufacturers President John Engler explains,

The Family and Medical Leave Act has become the single largest source of uncontrolled absences and, thus, the single largest source of all the costs those absences create: missed deadlines, late shipments, lost business, temporary help and overworked staff.

The most serious problems arise in the area of "intermittent leave," under which employees obtain a certification that they suffer an ongoing medical condition. This provision's intent was to accommodate employees with chronic ailments that might occasionally flare up, requiring minimal time off. But intermittent leave invites abuse. Once gaining a medical certification, a worker can leave essentially whenever he or she wants, with little, if any, notice to the boss.

In a recent survey of National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) membership, 65% of the requests received for intermittent leave were made either on the day of the leave, after the leave was taken or without any notice. You can imagine how disruptive this unexpected departure is to the workplace and the administrative nightmares it poses for employers.

Survey respondents also reported having to absorb significant operating costs due to intermittent leave in the form of lost productivity and missed deadlines. The Department of Labor's report confirms this very real harm to businesses.

The unfettered ability of employees to leave the workplace via a claim of intermittent leave also puts real burdens on co-workers. Imagine getting stuck with another employee's workload … intermittently.

The New Jersey program is more expansive than FMLA in that in its current form, it would allow for part-time workers to utilize the benefit (anyone earning $143 per week for 26 weeks in fact) and it would apply to companies of all sizes - FMLA offers an exemption to those with fewer than 50 employees.

Given that, isn't it time we fix FMLA before heaping another requirement on NJ's employers?

Immigration "Reform" and Red Tape

Here at NJ Business Matters, we have given scarce attention to the immigration debate, but the issue of employer document verification significantly impacts New Jersey's businesses.

New immigration regulations have employers spending more of their time complying with federal regulations, taking away from little things like running a business and trying to make payroll. Today's Record features multiple CIANJ members as they discuss the lenghthier visa process for new hires and the additional time needed to meet new government requirements.

The gist of the federal legislation was to make employers more responsible for hiring legal workers (something we have no objection to). However, CIANJ has called for altering the documentation process to something more dependable before making employers part of the enforcement mechanism.

Immigration attorney, and CIANJ member, David Nachman noted many of his clients find social security numbers mismatched with names for far-from-sinister reasons,

[T]he reason an employee's Social Security number doesn't match the federal records may have nothing to do with the worker's immigration status. For instance, the person may have changed her name due to marriage and not informed authorities, or the name may not have been input correctly in the federal database, he said.

That's particularly problematic with Hispanic employees, who often use several surnames, Nachman said. He said one of his clients, which employed a lot of Hispanics, was informed that a third of the company's workforce had names that did not match the federal records.

And that's before the underground market of document forgers goes to work. Ensuring a legal workforce may be a worthwhile goal, but putting an inequitable burden on employers is not the best way to get there. 

Money for Nothing

Assemblyman Michael Carroll uses his blog to address the problem of corruption which runs much deeper than certain public officials using the treasury for self-enrichment. For some, the purpose of government has evolved into taking other people's money and spreading it to select voting blocs in a fit of electoral preservation. As we have said here at NJ Business Matters during our many discussions on the state debt, financing schemes and budget gimmickry may all be complicated but the root cause is simple: elected leaders took our (taxpayer) money and spent it over-generously.

Carroll aptly points out,

The real scandal isn't that James, Bryant, and others took a small piece of the boodle for themselves; it's that the boodle exists at all. If you lived in Newark, why would you care about Sharpe’s (asserted) petty theft? YOU are doing very well -- thank you very much -- at the expense of Morris County taxpayers, and if James chooses to take a small gratuity, so what? It's not YOUR money, after all, that he's (allegedly) stealing. Chris Christie’s admonition to the voters – that they must police their own officeholders – rings hollow when the voters know about the corruption, but take no action, because its not THEIR money that the official steals. In fact, urban voters reward piracy, because they know that they benefit from the pillage.

Paul Mulshine notes the same flaw in today's Star-Ledger - the public will not police their own politicians if that same electorate is not the one being ripped off.

Yes, if the eleven public officials arrested last week are convicted they should all face stiff criminal penalties. But don't think that will be enough to truly end corruption or even address its source.

As Assemblyman Carroll concludes,

The fault in our system lies not with an occasional, corrupt legislator – there will be criminals in every profession – but with a corrupt electorate. All too many folks – here in NJ primarily urban residents and public employee unions, but, nationally, including folks like farmers – see politics as a way to enrich themselves at the expense of other people. We’re outraged when public officials personally profit by virtue of their position of power, but blithely accept the infinitely greater threat of the electorate doing precisely the same thing....

A small, efficient government, which does a few, unsexy, necessary things, and does them inexpensively, constitutes the best hope for a society free of corruption, one which respects the rights and freedom of all, and which does not create incentives, on the part of the electorate or the elected, to vote themselves other people’s money.

Just A Little Forty-Year Mistake

Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform, writes in today's New York Sun to address the forty-year lesson in government known as the Alternative Minimum Tax.

In 1969, the federal government targeted about 150 high wage earners who utilized the tax code to avoid income taxes. The AMT was created as a 10% tax base that disallowed almost all deductions to ensure these Americans paid. After not being adjusted for inflation and multiple increases, Congress is left to deal with a situation in which nearly 30 million Americans earning between $75,000 and $100,000 per year will be expected to pay the AMT by 2010. The rate for the AMT currently stands at 28%.

Norquist points out that the AMT is a mistake and while some on Capitol Hill would prefer to alter it (and use tax increases on everyone to make up for the lost taxes), the PAYGO rules should not apply to something that should have never existed.

Now there is considerable pressure on Mr. Rangel to help these constituents. So, he has been supporting a plan to eliminate the AMT — and raise taxes on everyone else to pay for it. Under the Rangel plan, small businesses and wealthy individuals would pay a "surtax," everyone would pay a higher capital gains rate, and everyone's pension would be taxed in the form of treating "carried interest" capital gains from private equity funds, which defined benefit pension plans increasingly use, as ordinary income.

He has to find a way to "pay" for AMT repeal because of the return of PAYGO rules with the new Democrat majority. You can't cut any taxes, according to these bizarre rubrics, without raising other ones.

If Mr. Rangel can't find enough tax increases to kill the AMT, he can try a "patch" that will keep the AMT-paying households at "only" several million taxpayers. This requires fewer tax increases, all of which will be permanent, in order to pay for only one year of this AMT "patch."

There is a better way. Senator Grassley, the ranking member on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, has a good way of describing the AMT: It's a mistake. It is not doing what it was intended to do. Instead, thanks to proper care and feeding by zookeepers, the AMT beast is threatening to ensnare tens of millions of American families.

To paraphrase Mr. Grassley, "you don't ‘fix' a mistake, or ‘patch' a mistake — you correct the mistake." In this case, that means a clean kill of the AMT. Revenue losses shouldn't be counted, since the AMT mistake is yielding a windfall o f income never intended by policymakers.

There is legislation to do just that in both chambers of Congress. This legislation is not sponsored by the likes of Mr. Rangel, who ostensibly wants to help AMT taxpayers, but by conservative Republicans who want to kill the AMT because it's the right thing to do. The "Individual AMT Repeal Act of 2007" has been introduced in the House, as H.R. 1366, by Rep. Phil English of Pennsylvania, and has 54 cosponsors. In the Senate, it's sponsored by none other than Mr. Grassley as S. 55. Quite simply, it would fully and totally repeal the AMT immediately.

Of course that would mean reducing spending somewhere else in government, which happens as often as "targeted" taxes remain targeted.

Slow Go

If we keep agreeing with the mainstream media, life is going to get pretty boring around the worldwide headquarters of CIANJ. Yesterday, the Star-Ledger urged Governor Corzine to advance his wind farm proposals slowly, given the potentially harmful impacts on shipping, ocean life and quality of life for New Jersey's residents. Wind power has not yet demonstrated that it can generate enough power to supply an economy and the quality of life we have come to enjoy. Being in favor of alternative energy is one thing, but sprinting toward it without scientific validation is another. The Ledger proclaims,

The administration should do two things to clear the air on wind power. First, Corzine should say flat out that he won't move forward unless the needed studies show the windmills won't make problems, whether for sea creatures, beach tourists or anyone else.

Second, the Board of Public Utilities, which is putting together the upcoming solicita tion for wind farm proposals, should make the governor's vow of being properly cautious a formal part of the solicitation language. That way, everyone will be on notice that science and economics -- not the dreams of wind farm developers, no matter how well-inten tioned -- are driving the exploration process.

It could take some time for the scientific and economic questions to be settled. The DEP hasn't awarded its environmental study yet, and the effort could take as long as 18 months. But even the governor's blue-ribbon panel on wind power said last year that a test project shouldn't move forward until the studies are done.

Just recently, a top Long Island Power Authority official recommended canceling a proposed wind farm project off the island's south shore because the cost had risen to a stagger ing $700 million-plus. Another wind project in Texas also was canceled for financial reasons, and one off Massachusetts has been becalmed by many of the same questions that wind power critics here are raising.

Oh by the way, there is one source of power which can generate electricity on a large-scale and produces virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions. Yet many of the same environmentalists looking to promote one unproven technology are against nuclear power.

For information on an organization CIANJ has joined to counter some of the myths surrounding nuclear energy (which already supplies NJ with 52% of its electricity), visit www.NJACRE.org.

Court Rejects Union Attempt to Join Class Action Suit

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled the International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 68 cannot join a class action lawsuit against drugmaker Merck under the state's Consumer Fraud Act. That Act was created to protect individuals who might be disadvantaged in court without suing as a group. The court ruled that unions need no such protection.

"Unlike those hourly wage earners, (the union) and other third- party payors are well-organized institutional entities with considerable resources," the justices wrote in a 30-page opinion.

The court's interpretation was cheered by business leaders who said it would help deter some lawsuits.

"It is very good news for New Jersey corporations," said John Brenner, who participated in the case as a "friend of the court" on behalf of the Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey.

Each Vioxx lawsuit is a separate case and needs to be considered separately. We applaud the Supreme Court for supporting that principle and for recognizing unions do not need additional protections in court. Once again, CIANJ was proud to support a business looking to protect itself from an improper use of the courts.

The syllabus and court opinion is available here.

CIANJ Renews Call for Pay-to-Play Reform and a True Ban on Dual Office Holding

The Commerce and Industry Association took today to renew its call for a ban on dual office holding and pay to play, following the arrest of 11 public officials on bribery charges related to roofing and insurance contracts. Star-Ledger coverage of the arrests is available here.

While CIANJ recognizes arrests are not the equivalent of convictions, the news further undermines public trust in our state government.

"Yesterday was a sad day for New Jersey, as the public’s trust in our state government further eroded.” said CIANJ President John Galandak, “The need for a true ban on dual office holding and pay-to-play reform has grown even stronger.”

Earlier this week, Governor Corzine signed legislation barring elected officials from holding more than one elected office. However, the legislation does not forbid elected officials from holding other public offices and it does not apply to those who have attained multiple offices through the upcoming elections.

State Borrows Another $1.25 Billion

From NJ.com:

Even as Gov. Jon Corzine works on a secret plan to pay down New Jersey's long-term debt, the bill continued to grow this morning, as a state transportation panel approved borrowing up to $1.25 billion to pay for highway and mass transit projects for another year.

The new loan, to replenish the state's Transportation Trust Fund, is the second of five annual installments of debt Corzine and lawmakers authorized when they restructured the trust fund last year.

Shell Game

It's post-Labor Day and that means a few important things: the Yankees are about to surge, the Giants are about to disappoint and politicians are ready to pander as they look to win your votes on Election Day.

Today, the Star-Ledger cautions you against listening about the successes during the highly-touted special session on property tax reform - the major accomplishment of which is a rebate largely funded by last year's sales tax increase. As we've noted here multiple times, any measure of tax relief is welcome news to our over-burdened taxpayers. However, true reform including a new school funding formula and bringing public employee benefits more in line with the private sector are necessary to make relief sustainable. The Ledger editorializes,

With Labor Day gone and the fall campaign for control of the Legislature about to get under way, voters can expect to hear about how much better off New Jersey's taxpayers are.

Don't believe it.

Let's review what drives spending: personnel costs. A preliminary look at recent teacher contracts shows about half the 200 that expire this year have already been signed, generally coming with annual salary increases of 4.6 percent. It isn't likely that number will budge much when all of them are settled. Then there will be salary adjustments for police, firefighters and other government workers.

Don't be surprised if, when the numbers are all in, the statewide average rise in property taxes mirrors that of past years -- in the 6 to 8 percent range.

And when it comes to the actual value of your rebate check, they add,

Rebate checks averaging $1,051 will arrive in the next month or so, but those checks aren't worth as much as they seem.

The average property tax bill last year was $6,170, and the average rebate will be $1,051. But if that tax bill increases by even 6 percent -- the low end of predictions -- the average homeowner will be paying $370 more in taxes, reducing the rebate to $681.

On top of that, a family earning $108,263 is paying an extra $253 in sales tax because it was raised from 6 percent to 7 percent last year. That money goes to the rebate program.

Bottom line: That $1,051 check is really more like $428.

Can anyone in Trenton understand why voters may feel they've been taken yet again?

Gas Prices The Result of Supply and Demand, Not Price Gouging

Bloomberg News is reporting that yet another investigation has found that last year's gas price increases were not the result of price gouging. That's not shocking news for those who follow little things like supply and demand, but our populist friends and their enablers have continued to push the myth that the omnipotent "big oil" conspired to increase prices.

As Bloomberg reports,

Gasoline price increases in the spring and summer of 2006 were not the result of antitrust violations by oil companies or refiners, the Federal Trade Commission said Thursday.

"The 2006 price increases were caused by a confluence of factors reflecting the normal operation of the market," the commission said in a report to President Bush.

Those factors included higher prices for crude oil and ethanol, greater demand for fuel during the summer driving season as well as lingering refinery outages from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Reduced capacity while refinery owners switched to using ethanol as a fuel additive also contributed.

The full report is available here.