12 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(10/28/03 12:00pm)
On Nov. 4, voters from all across New Jersey will head to the polls to elect 40 State Senators and 80 members of the General Assembly to the state legislature. Mercer County has received special attention because it is one of a few counties across the state with key competitive elections.
State Senator Peter Inverso represents the 14th legislative district, which includes Hamilton, West Windsor and a large stretch of southern Middlesex County.
Two years ago, when some analysts raised serious concerns about Inverso's ability to win reelection in a very weak year for Republicans overall, he managed to retain his seat with a margin of four percentage points over a formidable opponent.
Inverso is the only candidate with real plans for controlling suburban sprawl, providing property tax relief, school and municipal aid to municipalities and supporting environmental protection and public safety measures.
Inverso's constituents know him as someone who protects their interests - particularly those employed in state government jobs as well as low-income families and senior citizens who need health care services.
He has received support from organizations representing a broad variety of interests in his district, including labor, business, environmental and senior citizens groups that have to be thoroughly impressed with a candidate in order for them to lend their endorsement.
Senator Inverso's opponent, former Assemblyman Skip Cimino, was part of the problem in the legislature before the voter rebellion against higher taxes in 1991.
It's very difficult to find a better team of legislative candidates running anywhere in the state than in Senator Inverso's district.
Bill Baroni and Sidna Mitchell are running on the ticket with Senator Inverso for the district's seats in the General Assembly and they are talking about real issues, particularly pay-to-play legislation and other essential reforms designed to increase voter confidence in state government, but which Gov. McGreevey and the Democratic legislature are currently blocking.
Mercer County Republicans deserve a lot of credit for the effort they've put into many worthwhile campaigns which have had several great victories over the years.
They have outstanding candidates this year that care about their communities and the general future of the county. Cathy DiCostanzo, currently serving as Mercer County Clerk, is running to replace Robert Prunetti as County Executive.
She is addressing issues that matter to average Mercer County residents such as economic growth, property tax reduction, assistance to the city of Trenton, enhancing the quality of education and environmental protection.
The voters of Mercer County know her well and have supported her in two prior countywide elections. She's the only candidate in this race with the ability to implement real solutions to problems.
There are several other key legislative races with their own individual circumstances.
To win over suburban voters, N.J. Democrats are depending heavily on fundraising and running campaigns based on real intellectual dishonesty, not only about their opponents but also about themselves.
This strategy worked well in recent years in Bergen County and elsewhere, but the same strategy will not work for legislative races in Mercer County and in other competitive districts.
N.J. Democrats and their supporters in the N.J. Supreme Court worked hard to establish roadblocks to a democratic legislative election process that reinforces the ideal of a competitive two-party system, especially when the governor is highly unpopular.
Many districts include both cities and Republican-leaning suburbs with diametrically different views on the way the government should operate and the standards they have for their elected officials.
The Supreme Court endorsed the waiving of a constitutional provision on the replacement of candidates last year after state Democrats complained that voters had a right to a competitive election.
Shouldn't voters in legislative races also have a right to competitive elections?
Even in the face of such obstacles, many state legislative races are competitive because voters in these districts have decided that Republicans share the sentiments of voters on the direction of our state economy, on tax relief and all the issues that indicate N.J. voters want their state to be a decent and affordable place to live.
It means fighting on behalf of businesses, taxpayers, homeowners and anyone in New Jersey who is concerned about where this state is headed under McGreevey and his allies in the state legislature.
On Nov. 4, we will see if we will have a legislative branch with a leadership team that is up to the task of addressing the causes of problems in New Jersey. Granting minority party status to the current legislative leadership is a great start.
(10/14/03 12:00pm)
Did you know California is a Republican state? Did you know Los Angeles is a Republican county?
Did you know Republicans can win over two-thirds of voters in places like Orange and San Diego Counties, the Inland Empire and the Central Valley?
Californians haven't seen anything like what happened in the recall election held last week since 1994.
With turnout among registered Californian voters at 60 percent, Schwarzenegger won over his closest rival with a margin of more than 1.3 million votes. Schwarzenegger won 48 percent of the vote in what turned out to be essentially a three-way race.
We heard from the Democrats how someone could win with "as little as 15 percent of the vote." However, what we saw in California last week looked more like democracy and a clear governing mandate for Schwarzenegger.
Schwarzenegger won heavily among voting men, but he also won among women voters by five percentage points.
He won big in all the key Republican demographic groups and only lost the Hispanic vote (18 percent of the total vote) by 22 percentage points. Republican men and women voted almost identically.
Schwarzenegger carried moderates and independents by substantial margins. He carried conservatives by well over 60 percent even though many of them would have preferred Republican State Sen. Tom McClintock. At the end of the day, conservative voters were looking for someone who could win and who shared their views on all the key issues facing Californians during this crisis.
Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, the Democratic candidate on the second portion of the recall ballot, did not do well during the debate with Schwarzenegger and the other major candidates.
He released a plan to fix California's problems, calling it "Tough Love." This is not a very fashionable name for a new economic proposal, especially when you kick it off in a campaign that endorses tax increases almost immediately.
Also, if people were truly fed up with Davis, I think they would have enough sense to avoid voting for someone who supported Davis from the beginning.
In the last nine days, the California Democratic Party launched a last-minute smear campaign of the type I find hard to believe in American elections.
Davis really should have listened to Democratic Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who warned him not to run another campaign based on "puke politics."
Last year, Davis spent $10 million in the Republican primary in misleading attack ads against Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, the one Republican who had the best record and the best chance of defeating Davis.
There's only so much harm you can do to a state before voters finally say that they will not take it anymore.
Davis overspent taxpayers' money, approved of astronomical rates for energy consumption and misled the public in his analysis of the problems facing California's state budget.
California has been in serious crisis and voters were mad as hell - according to polls, 72 percent of Californians disapproved of Davis' job performance.
California may have the largest population of any state, but the size of state deficit is so disproportionately high when compared to every other state that it trumps all other state deficits combined.
Just like Californians could no longer tolerate the property tax problem 25 years ago, this year they voiced their displeasure with "business as usual" in Sacramento.
Schwarzenegger had all the good guys around him: Dick Riordan, former Governor Pete Wilson, Congressman David Dreier of the Inland Empire and many other public officials throughout the state.
They stood up against Davis' inner circle: labor unions, trial lawyers, teachers unions, the National Organization for Women, the Los Angeles Times and just about every Democratic presidential candidate.
Californians won on Oct. 7. - they reversed what turned out to be a downward spiral by taking out the worst governor in the nation.
Next year, California will hold an election for U.S. Senate and Riordan should really give some thought to entering the race.
He's done so much to turn Los Angeles around that we could use him in Washington making decisions that affect the nation.
(09/23/03 12:00pm)
As if the field of candidates were not crowded enough, former NATO Supreme Commander Wesley Clark recently announced that he would become the 10th candidate for the Democratic nomination for President in 2004.
Clark has to make a case for his campaign, but his anouncement comes at such an early stage that voters should give his campaign some time and consider the three other candidates who actually have a good chance of winning the nomination: John Kerry, Howard Dean and Joseph Lieberman.
The other six candidates should automatically be asked to drop out because they are hardly registering support anywhere in the country.
While I was at a hotel in Atlantic City over the summer, I remember seeing Dean's picture on the cover of Time Magazine and thinking to myself, "Giving Dean the nomination would be a godsend to the Republican Party."
He stands out as an unreconstructed liberal from what is already a left-of-center state. Socialized medicine has become Dean's number one campaign issue and he plans to fund it by increasing federal taxes.
America's health care industry is important to our economy for jobs and high health care standards.
Nations that have tried a single-payer health care system have had all sorts of problems because national budgets usually cannot cover the entire expense.
Additionally, elected officials have no choice but to increase taxes in what are already heavily taxed countries, cut back on funding for services, reduce the number of hospital beds and make people wait for long periods of time for even emergency health care services.
Many of the reforms considered overseas involve allowing doctors and specialists to set up private practices while giving people the independence to choose their own doctors. During the 1980s, John Kerry was the lieutenant governor under Michael Dukakis and supported weekend passes for convicted felons, including first-degree murderers, in Massachusetts.
Although he is not a carbon copy of Ted Kennedy, his Senate colleague, Kerry, has also cast an incredible number of like-minded bad votes.
Kerry voted against a balanced budget amendment, against relief for American taxpayers, against the 1991 Persian Gulf War, against the death penalty and has supported expensive and wasteful expenditures such as the "Big Dig" public works project in Boston.
Then there's Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. It's not easy to run for the White House from the Democratic side if you have original ideas.
He has supported school choice, Social Security reform, re-evaluating federal Affirmative Action policies and product liability reform in the past. Lieberman also has supported judging Supreme Court nominees based on competence and integrity instead of where they personally stand on one or two political issues.
On tax reduction, he has always supported cutting taxes on capital gains to motivate the economy and he deserves credit for that. Lieberman is someone who ran for the U.S. Senate in 1988 as a more conservative alternative to liberal Republican Lowell Weicker.
Lieberman should stick with what has worked so well for him in the past and what has made him well-liked even among Republicans.
Despite the popularity of conservative liberals like Lieberman, Republican U.S. Senators are safe because the vast majority of seats held in heavily Republican states. The GOP will probably even pick up a few more seats.
Ever since Lieberman first announced his intentions to run for President one year before the 2000 election, my preferences have continued to stay with George W. Bush and the Republican party.
It is also critical that Pennsylvania Republicans give their nomination once again to Senator Arlen Specter.
George W. Bush is popular even in states that he lost by more than double digits three years ago. Ronald Reagan had a weaker standing in opinion polls at this same time in 1983.
At the start of the 1988 campaign, Vice-President George Bush was miles behind Gov. Michael Dukakis and managed to win his election by more than seven million votes.
Bush's re-election will not sweep the vast majority of the country like Reagan's victory in 1984 or Nixon's victory in 1972, so his re-election team should be careful with spending any money in most New England states with the exceptions of New Hampshire and Maine.
Waging campaigns in California, Illinois and New York are very expensive and hard to win, but the Bush team should target at least one of these states.
If the object of the Democratic primary campaign is to talk about real changes and to connect with American voters, none of the Democratic candidates are having much luck so far.
(09/16/03 12:00pm)
Three years ago this month, Presidential candidate George W. Bush released a policy document entitled, "Blueprint For the Middle Class," designed to appeal to middle-income voters based largely in America's politically competitive suburbs.
Bush explained his views on traditional issues that are often of concern to suburban families and their communities: education, health care, Social Security, conservation programs and crime reduction.
Republicans were beginning to make headway on issues that Democrats usually dominated in public opinion polls.
One issue outlined in the health care section of Bush's campaign document was the modernization of Medicare, which many members of Congress considered long overdue.
The section includes a prescription drug benefit and a greater choice in plans with more options and the common ability to make use of medical breakthroughs.
Medicare modernization has been a hot-button topic in recent months.
Late last June, the U.S. House and Senate passed Medicare legislation that fit the outline of Bush's original proposal.
But, many Senate Republicans, who voted both for and against modernization, questioned the need to pass a bill.
The bill included a provisions to target a prescription drug benefit at low-income seniors and individuals with excessive drug costs.
The Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act of 2003 was designed to establish a prescription drug benefit that would save taxpayers money in the long run.
Those drugs would reduce the need for more expensive health care measures in the future.
Quality care, preventive health care services and disease management are also included in the bill.
They were also priorities for many Congressional Republicans concerned with consequences of the upsurge in Medicare costs on the federal budget.
Bush's health care strategy focused on Medicare basically in the same light.
Reforms in Medicare would be used to reform health care in America.
This would bring costs down while maintaining the highest standard of care available anywhere in the world.
Without reforms, the system will eventually become financially unsustainable.
The continuing rise in health care expenditures only reinforces the industry's standing as the most expensive sector in American life.
Suburban voters want quality health care at reasonable cost.
Any Congressional efforts to reform America's health care system should be done with Medicare as an archetype and an instrument for change in the entire industry.
But members of Congress should realize that medical coverage should set different priorities today.
They should not follow the same mindset of legislators who supported the creation of the program in 1966, when Medicare cost almost nothing to operate.
Medicare is not designed to accept change very easily, either through changes in law or changes initiated by providers of medical services.
At this point, the system is very difficult for consumers to work with compared to other industries in which buyers know exactly what they are looking for and what they will receive.
Legislators have to adopt changes to make senior citizens less inclined to use Medicare by avoiding the need to use Medicare payments for expensive procedures.
At some point, it will no longer be realistic for Medicare to pay all medical expenses for seniors if they get sick, but rather do anything to make sure seniors avoid reaching that point.
This can be done by incorporating certain strategies into the Medicare program where minor health costs would be applied to Medicare recipients.
People should also watch their health largely through physical fitness - use preventive medicine.
Medical Savings Accounts provide an opportunity to individualize health care plans through maintaining collective insurance that will provide incentives for users to calculate their health care needs more carefully.
The health care system should accommodate providers and communities at the local level to run their own programs.
The system should see what works, and create models of health care innovation that could provide answers on how health care in America could operate most efficiently.
The Medicare Modernization Act is a dramatic step forward and further health care reforms should be implemented in the future.
(09/09/03 12:00pm)
Twenty-five years ago, Californians decided that the time had come to make a dramatic change in the ominous direction that their state was headed.
In the late 1970s, the consequences of high inflation California's real estate values forced property tax rates to escalate so rapidly that California was destined to become the most heavily taxed state in the nation. With the help of tax revolt leader Howard Jarvis, Proposition 13 qualified under California's Initiative and Referendum system.
Proposition 13 enacted several features to make the real estate market more competitive by imposing a one percent cap on tax rates, adjusting property values to 1976 levels, limiting property tax increases and conducting annual reassessments only upon changes in ownership.
In 1978, Californian voters overwhelmingly backed Proposition 13. Homeowners paid lower property tax rates and could finally anticipate the maximum level of tax increases annually, eliminating uncertainty in the housing market.
Liberals, teachers' unions and the press claimed Proposition 13 would deplete funding for public schools, yet state tax revenues as a share of incomes increased during the 1980s because of vast economic growth in California. Proposition 13 has saved the average property taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars and still remains popular.
Today, Californians are facing a remarkably similar crisis. An incredible hole exists in their state budget amounting to $38 billion, surpassing all other state deficits combined.
With the passage of contracts that have fastened astronomical energy rates for the next two decades, a 40 percent increase in state spending, and a tripling of the car tax, many Californians are not only angry that they were misled last year by Gov. Gray Davis, but they have become truly restless about their state's future. Over 1.6 million Californians have signed recall petitions.
Last November, California Democrats captured control of every statewide office, but Republicans had one success story: the passage of Proposition 49, which the state party urged a yes vote on, providing additional funding for after school programs in public schools.
Proposition 49 would improve student performance and attendance, reduce crime and provide overall savings for taxpayers. Arnold Schwarzenegger led the campaign effort behind Proposition 49, which was approved by 3.5 million Californians.
Schwarzenegger has become the California Republicans' best hope for winning the Governor's office. Former Gov. Pete Wilson and former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan have endorsed Schwarzenegger as have dozens of Republican legislators.
By all indications, Schwarzenegger would govern much like Wilson and Riordan.
He's a fiscal conservative who believes in reducing taxes and regulations, relying on economic growth to strengthen public education, anti-crime measures, reforming workers' compensation and environmental programs. On social issues, he's in line with both men, which benefits him statewide.
Although Democrats enjoy a 10-point registration advantage over Republicans in California, this also existed when many statewide GOP candidates achieved great successes or near-victories. Republicans do well statewide if they are able to carry San Diego and Orange Counties, the Inland Empire, Central Valley and the Central and Northern Coast by strong enough margins to offset Democratic wins in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County.
Support from Republican-leaning demographic groups, women and moderates is critical and provided Wilson with his reelection victory in 1994.
Proposition 54, the Racial Privacy Initiative that will also be on the recall ballot, would eliminate most government documentation of race, ethnicity or national origin.
Growing Hispanic voting strength and representation means Republicans have to be cautious in supporting race-based initiatives, which weakened their standing among Hispanics.
Republicans should support moderate measures against illegal immigration, encourage assimilation in public schools and conduct an intense effort to court Hispanics.
In 1998, Mayor Riordan endorsed Proposition 227 because he witnessed how bilingual education programs in Los Angeles. left many non-English speaking children far behind other children in mainstream classes with graduates not being able to read, write, or speak English properly.
Proposition 227 required English to be taught immediately by providing an intensive English program, not normally exceeding one year, designed to improve test scores and reduce dropout rates among Hispanic students, a system similar to what every Western government uses and one which Republicans can safely encourage.
The recall effort has generated a powerful movement against Davis. His replacement on the ballot has largely been part of the problem and promises more of the same.
If Schwarzenegger can convince voters of both parties and independents that he shares their sentiments and frustrations, Californians will break the trend of bleak prospects and failed leadership in Sacramento.
(04/29/03 12:00pm)
Since we have reached the end of the academic year, I would sure like to use the time remaining to address some of the concerns that others have expressed about American foreign policy in the 1980s.
Under the Reagan Doctrine, U.S. assistance was given to pro-democracy forces in countries that were being threatened by Marxist-Leninist takeovers. There is no better example than in Nicaragua and El Salvador. We did not support the establishment of Soviet-backed dictatorships so close to our borders.
The leadership in El Salvador was willing to work with Vice President George Bush to respect human rights. Conditions were not perfect, but El Salvador was on the right path - presidential candidate Jose Napoleon Duarte, a Christian Democrat, was elected with 54 percent of the vote in a certifiably free election held in 1984 and supported investigating the murder of U.S. citizens in San Salvador.
In Nicaragua, under the leadership of Daniel Ortega, an avowed Marxist, the Sandinistas aborted their pledge for democracy by seizing control of communications and heavily censoring La Prensa, disparaging the Roman Catholic Church in an overwhelmingly Catholic nation.
This prohibited free elections by making the ground rules such that opposition leaders could not wage a campaign, abandoning any plans for improving human rights, persecuting the Indian populations on the Caribbean coast, taking possession of private property for collectivized farming, and using the schools for Marxist-Leninist indoctrination. Were they trying to promote democracy or fight for freedom? I suggest not.
Three out of every four dollars we sent to Nicaragua went for economic aid, and the rest was used for military purposes.
I'll be the first to admit it - we did not want Nicaragua to serve as a channel for supplies coming in from Cuba and the Soviet Bloc with the intention of destabilizing neighboring governments.
We were right in mining the harbors of Nicaragua to stop our enemies from turning the country into a weapons distribution center. We wanted to see the trend toward democracy continue, but we would not have been successful if we had allowed Soviet-backed governments to proliferate in Central America, which would have spread to South America and eventually North America.
American foreign policy under the Carter Administration harmed our standing in the world by providing aid to the newly-installed Sandinista government, surrendering the Panama Canal to an enemy dictatorship, disregarding the Communist takeover of Grenada and Cuba's unrestrained military buildup.
This included moving to destabilize the anticommunist government of Guatemala, and taking other actions that undermined our ability to control Soviet expansionism.
Whether we were dealing with Marxist-Leninist insurgencies, international terrorism or radical Islam, sometimes it took silent action to support a friend. If we had eliminated all covert action, that would have had serious consequences.
During the 1984 elections, reporters would constantly ask voters, "Why are so many of you voting for the Reagan-Bush ticket?" With such an outstanding record on foreign policy, including the fact that several dozen nations either established democratic governments or began moving in the democratic direction, their reelection was difficult to dispute. Western liberal democracy swept the world during that time, particularly in the Pacific Rim and South America.
To conclude the year, I would like to wish the graduates of our university well in their career decisions. It has been a pleasure to write for The Signal and I thank everyone for their interest in my columns.
I look forward to working with The Signal staff next semester. To all those returning next year, enjoy your summer vacation. And, of course, good luck with your final exams.
(04/22/03 12:00pm)
On April 21, former Republican Gov. Thomas Kean celebrated his sixty-eighth birthday. I think it is highly appropriate to commemorate a person who was, in my opinion, the greatest and most respected governor in our state's history.
The son of a congressman, Kean grew up in Washington, D.C., and Livingston, N.J. The Kean family has deep political roots in N.J. In 1958, Kean assisted his father's unsuccessful campaign for U.S. Senate.
In 1967, Kean ran successfully for the General Assembly in what was mostly a middle-class suburban district in Essex County with the exception of Irvington. He became majority leader when Republican Gov. William Cahill was elected. Kean had several early legislative accomplishments with environment, assistance to urban schools and campaign financing laws.
Kean later became Speaker of the Assembly with the help of Hudson County Democrats who worked well with him and Cahill.
The Watergate scandal left the N.J. Republicans in disarray: only 14 Republicans remained in the Assembly. When Rep. Peter Frelinghuysen chose to retire after the 1974 election, Kean ran unsuccessfully for the GOP nomination.
Kean then returned to the Assembly and worked as the campaign manager of President Ford's successful N.J. election campaign. In 1977, he ran for governor, but lost the Republican primary to State Sen. Ray Bateman. Bateman made a mistake by opposing the state income tax, which led to his defeat in the general election. Once a state adopts an income tax, it becomes extraordinarily difficult to eliminate it and maintain the funding structure.
In 1981, Kean ran successfully for the gubernatorial nomination by forming an essential coalition of moderates and conservatives. He went on to defeat then Rep. Jim Florio, but the general election results were so close that the race was decided by a recount that ended weeks later.
Kean viewed himself as a conservative who believed in law-and-order legislation, welfare reform, fiscal discipline and limited government while championing liberal issues such as environmental protection, education, civil rights, urban policy and assistance for the economically disadvantaged.
The 1982 recession had a devastating impact on the state's economy, forcing the governor to make cuts in spending and public employees while approving increases in the sales and income taxes. Without the balanced budget requirement and the line-item veto, Kean would not have been able to avert fiscal chaos.
Kean then carried out his promise to refurbish N.J.'s economy by slashing the unemployment rate in half, improving the business climate, signing five tax cuts including the repeal of the inheritance tax and leaving the state with a significant surplus that would be returned to the taxpayers with the help of Speaker Chuck Hardwick.
Gov. Kean is probably known best for his ground-breaking reforms in education, including an $18,500 a year minimum salary for teachers, a limited merit pay system, higher standards, doubling spending for urban schools, recruitment reforms and tougher minimum skills tests.
I'm delighted that another member of the Kean family is now in the state legislature, Tom Kean, Jr. is a State Senator from District 21, Union County. I have met Kean's son and I have found him to be very charming, talented and knowledgeable on the issues.
Kean, Jr. will be in the U.S. Senate or in the Governor's office someday, I'm sure of it.
On behalf of all N.J. Republicans, we will never forget what Gov. Kean did for our party and we will always remember how he brought back pride in N.J.
(04/15/03 12:00pm)
In an amazing display of strategic, technological and military might, coalition forces arrived at the outskirts of Iraq's capital in slightly less than three weeks.
Operation Iraqi Freedom has been carried out with remarkable effectiveness considering the sheer magnitude of the war. The contributions from all Coalition members were beyond sufficient for our well-planned engagements.
Government and military facilities have been attacked from the air and sea with pinpoint accuracy and minimal loss of life. This is relative to the urban warfare environment with total casualties amounting to less than 150 Coalition deaths and less than 1,300 civilian deaths.
Coalition forces were able to form two fronts with valuable assistance from Kurdish allies.
A few days after the invasion, the U.S. established control of a key river crossing on the Euphrates River at Nasiriya. Iraq's military, including the supposedly impenetrable Republican Guard, was actually quite ineffectual. Even before the commencement of a major ground offensive, Coalition airstrikes left the Republican Guard's Medina Division at 65 percent capacity. We moved our way north and, on April 6, Baghdad was completely surrounded.
We should remember when many of the internal naysayers claimed that an invasion of Iraq would have destructive effects on Iraqi citizens, relations with foreign governments, the stability of the immediate region and any other fabrication they could come up with.
After everything the Iraqi government has done to repress its people, including the use of biological weapons against undesirables within its borders, the unrelenting use of contemptible forms of punishment and its most recent activity in shooting at hundreds of civilians trying to flee toward Coalition troops, you would expect the anti-war crowd to side with us.
During times of warfare, Americans should stand together, not only with our soldiers, but also with the president, whether it was President Clinton's efforts in Kosovo or President George Bush's efforts in Iraq. I find it irritating when people claim to support our forces while staging anti-war protests that undermine the mission these soldiers are committed to carrying out.
I supported the war in Iraq from the very beginning, and proudly, from an ethical standpoint. We could have prevented this war if former President Bush had listened to the hawks, who urged him to ignore the United Nations. and occupy Baghdad in 1991 when we had the opportunity. Instead, we took a conciliatory approach, settling with ineffective measures, such as economic sanctions and a largely nonbinding agreement for Iraqi cooperation and disarmament.
U.S. forces have located production facilities that have created weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological agents as well as ballistic missiles and delivery systems that Iraq is not even supposed to possess, according to the terms set down in U.N. Resolution 687 after the first Gulf War.
America has an honorable plan to redevelop Iraq by restoring essential services and supplies, using Iraq's rich oil fields for the long-term economic well being of the citizenry and creating a system whereby citizens can choose their leaders without fear of imprisonment or death.
It is encouraging to hear that France, Germany and Russia have agreed to cooperate with Iraq's reconstruction.
But the U.S. could have used their assistance much sooner. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz thinks the Iraqi people should develop a new government of their own.
However, with strong external pressure, we have a historic chance at forming a democratic state.
The U.S. has come a long way in a comparatively short period of time. As I write, Tikrit is the only major stronghold left standing, although it is being heavily bombarded from the air. The regime is gone and we should rejoice over how successfully the war was carried out.
The statue of Saddam Hussein falling in Baghdad was a triumphant moment, augmented by the elation from Iraqi citizens who realized that they have finally been liberated from one of modern history's most cruel and oppressive regimes.
Daniel Cuellar is a moderate Republican from Morris Plains in Morris County. Cuellar is a sophomore political science major at the College.
(04/08/03 12:00pm)
On June 3, registered voters across New Jersey nominate candidates for both chambers of the N.J. state legislature. One race in Morris County is especially worth noting. Jay Webber, a Chatham attorney, is challenging Republican State Sen. Robert Martin in the twenty-sixth legislative district. Largely white-collar and affluent, Martin's district is the home of many large corporations and wealthy executives.
Unlike other primaries across the state which involve organizational lines, influence from Democrat party bosses, and special election bitterness, Morris County has turned into the state's most perceptible ideological battleground.
In the heart of the most Republican county in New Jersey, this district primary involves both the question of issue positions as well as the question of leadership - the need for a firm and unified opposition voice against the governing party in Trenton.
Martin's record leaves a lot to be desired. His election year pageantry is unconvincing considering all the credibility gaps and contradictory statements in his press releases. He claims to be a fiscal conservative while his voting record indicates his support for nearly every bill that comes with a price tag.
He was one of two Senate Republicans to oppose NJSAVER, a tax relief program, and one of the few protections property taxpayers have against higher taxes, yet he claims to support it now that the Governor is reducing the size of property tax relief programs.
In the past, Martin mentioned that endorsements are largely insignificant, yet one of the first actions the Martin campaign took after Webber declared his candidacy was to release a list of county and local officials who endorsed his campaign.
On the issues, Webber is considerably more compatible with GOP voters. He opposes sending a highly disproportionate share of state tax dollars to failing urban governments and schools. He will employ a much more frugal approach and represent Morris County values on economic and budget issues.
A strict constructionist, Webber will support N.J. Supreme Court nominees on the Republican side who can accurately interpret our state constitution.
The current Court has harmed our state's image across the country, yet Martin actually spoke in praise of its activist tendencies on everything from education spending in urban areas to suburban sprawl.
One of Martin's claims is that he has made an impact on the issues expressly because of his elective experience - he joined the Morris Plains Council in 1983 and departed to the General Assembly for eight years, after which he was elected to the State Senate
Be that as it may, Webber has strong qualifications outside elected office with a Harvard law degree and experience as a budget staff member for former Congressman William Martini, elected in the Republican Revolution of 1994.
Webber ran Martini's 1996 reelection campaign and, although unsuccessful, Martini received 48 percent of the vote in a dreadful year for N.J. Republicans, even though the district included the heavily minority communities of Paterson and Passaic.
Martin's allies say the Republican Party's financial resources should be concentrated in competitive districts. I couldn't agree more, but the 26 is a fiscally conservative district and it deserves fiscally conservative legislators.
If Martin were to vote in Morris County's interests, this primary would not be necessary. State Republicans need legislators who will stand up to Democratic Senate Co-President Dick Codey and the Trenton liberals.
State Senate seats don't come cheap for N.J. Republicans and Morris County, which is critical to a GOP majority in the State House, cannot afford ineffective leadership. Morris County is home to one good State Senator, but I think it deserves two.
I am confident that Webber would make a great contribution in terms of providing leadership for the party as well as building a voting record that Morris County voters can be proud of.
He would develop a constructive working relationship with the GOP legislative leadership team as well as conservative and moderate Republicans in the State House.
(03/25/03 12:00pm)
Under Governors Kean and Whitman, New Jersey established a reputation as a business-friendly state with a record of job growth and balanced budgets, but not anymore. I've seen Gov. McGreevey's budget proposal for 2004. Even considering current economic circumstances, it's not pretty.
Over the next several weeks, the N.J. State Legislature will hold hearings on the governor's budget.
Many of us remember when the governor released the $23.6 billion Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 budget last year, saying it would help working families and restore responsibility in state government. The budget was a disaster, replete with increases in taxes and fees.
The budget actually increased state spending by $2 billion, almost 10 percent, from its 2001 expenditures.
McGreevey has proposed a $23.7 billion budget for FY04, reducing the rate of increase to 1.3 percent. He has also suspended the offset two-thirds of projected budget increases. Cuts have been made in pensions within the Benefit Enhancement Fund, aid for schools and higher education, Charity Care payments, property tax relief, retirement health programs and the arts.
If you look over the text of the budget proposal, you can't avoid noticing that cuts to state programs and services are insufficient in low priority expenditures and that spending cuts are tilted too heavily at school aid and property tax relief programs, not bureaucracy.
The governor has never truly believed in property tax relief programs, such as the Homestead rebate, calling it a "crazy program" while visiting the College. You have to question whether or not he really believes in property tax relief in the first place.
He's not doing enough to address the budget deficits. Look no further than his efforts in the last budget, which left a $5 billion budget deficit for FY04, despite claims that the last budget would put state government back on track.
The FY04 budget recommends revenue enhancements of nearly $900 million. There was talk about a new hotel tax last year. Well, now it's here, along with a whole array of other taxes and fees.
He suspended a majority of projected budget increases and cut many expenses by less than $2 billion, not factoring in all the major spending increases, which are almost as substantial.
From 2002 expenditures, McGreevey has increased spending overall on direct state services, grants-in-aid, state aid and capital construction.
The budget proposal does not indicate any real effort to reduce bureaucracy, such as reforming state employee pension and health benefits.
It should do a lot more in reducing certain public safety, health service, educational, social service and general government expenditures.
I would support initiatives that freeze school aid and reduce assistance to public colleges if I were truly convinced that the executive budget did everything possible to cut appropriations across-the-board.
Because McGreevey targeted school aid so heavily, property taxes are increasing at the highest level in 10 years, and this policy will continue for a second consecutive year.
This is the same politician who continuously criticized Gov. Whitman by suggesting her 30 percent reduction in the state income tax, which doubled revenues, was responsible for local property tax increases. Now he's attacking the former governor for her history of fiscal mismanagement, even though she was able to finance her budgets.
We should cut the state budget, but we should do it for the right reasons.
The state can't balance the budgets on the backs of property taxpayers, senior citizen or students in public institutions without conducting a serious and extensive reassessment of how tax money is spent in New Jersey.
(03/18/03 12:00pm)
The next elections for federal offices are approaching quickly and our neighbors in Pennsylvania will once again experience competitive races for President and U.S. Senate, reinforcing the Keystone State's reputation as a political battleground.
While new candidates are starting to emerge and incumbents are deciding whether or not to run again, U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter is already being challenged by Rep. Patrick Toomey in the GOP primary.
Both men are well-qualified with impressive voting records and viewpoints on the issues.
Specter is seeking a fifth term in the upper house. He is a traditional Northeastern Republican, who is moderate on social issues, federal social insurance, the environment and education.
An ally of President Bush, Specter has supported his education reforms as well as his economic and foreign policy agenda. He has been an industrious advocate of the balanced budget amendment, a line-item veto, a 20 percent federal flat tax and the death penalty.
Toomey came from the private sector, not politics. Toomey had earned the support of fellow Republicans and former Governor of Pennsylvania and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, and he went on to defeat Democratic State Senator Ray Afflerbach with 55 percent of the vote.
Toomey has made a name for himself on a range of issues, including Medicare modernization, Social Security reform, social conservatism and reductions in spending and taxation levels.
He has been a star on the House Budget Committee, working with the Republican majority on long-term budget planning.
I'm encouraged by Toomey's pro-business, free-market approach to issues. He is self-term limited and I appreciate his dedication to the term limits movement.
He would bring both youth and experience to the U.S. Senate.
He has cast himself as a true Republican and Specter as a "consistent liberal," a regrettable but necessary tactic.
Toomey needs to gain the confidence of an estimated 1 million conservative voters among 3.2 million registered Republicans. Sen. Rick Santorum's successful campaigns indicate that conservatives like Toomey can win statewide elections.
Specter, however, has the backing of the White House and the Senate Republican leadership. Specter's funding base is largely in the more populated areas.
Specter has a clear financial advantage, high name recognition and organizational support.
Toomey, on the other hand, is known as an avid fundraiser who could quickly build a statewide campaign. Specter also has a proven record of winning elections.
Specter's decisions on President Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court, the impeachment of President Clinton and his interrogation of Anita Hill were controversial, yet principled and I admire him for his candor and consideration during difficult times.
This race has the potential to narrow considerably. I tend to favor Specter's reelection to make certain that Republicans retain both Pennsylvania Senate seats, but with such a stellar record in the U.S. House, Toomey deserves a chance to become a U.S. Senator.
Despite the possibility that the Senate primary could become contentious and nasty, this should be an exciting race.
If the candidates stick to issues and their Congressional records, the GOP will be in good condition after the primary is held.
(03/04/03 12:00pm)
At the domestic level, one of the most significant training and recruitment centers for leftist activism against the war in Iraq can be found on the campuses of American universities.
Student organizations, as well as professors, in hotbeds of political activism, such as University of California at Berkeley, Smith College in Massachusetts and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have challenged the Bush administration over its uncompromising resolve requiring Saddam Hussein to comply with U.N. Resolution 1441.
As of late, activist elements in American college campuses have been organizing against U.S. foreign policy and rallying unsuspecting students behind an unpatriotic cause.
Left-wing groups on some college campuses have held forums on the societal and geopolitical dangers of an anticipatory invasion of Iraq and promoted demonstrations against the Bush administration.
Political activists frequently advocate the diversion of resources from national defense to what they consider to be more valuable expenditures such as enhancing public education, as if the capability of our military to engage in extensive military endeavors doesn't matter.
We have seen the effects of complacency and inadequate spending levels for the military, which result in a weaker fighting force without adequate training and equipment. We need a strong America to meet international objectives and protect the cause of democracy.
Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, a pragmatic moderate republican who has his own convictions yet considers and respects all views from his constituents in the Stamford-Bridgeport area, held a town hall meeting last week to take questions from the audience regarding U.S. military involvement in Iraq.
Like me, Shays' concerned about Iraq possessing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons as well as the threat Iraq presents to nearby governments and Kurds in the country's northern region.
Despite discovering evidence of weapons programs in the past, U.N. inspections have not been conducted since 1998. Shays believes Iraq should grant inspectors the free and unfettered ability to inspect all sites, including those that Hussein has blocked from inspection.
We shouldn't wait for Hussein to develop and use these weapons to raise serious concerns.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's reference to France and Germany as "Old Europe" has validity, especially in light of French President Jacques Chirac's incendiary comments regarding the willingness of former Soviet Bloc nations to endorse America's efforts in Iraq.
I have to commend Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga for her understanding of Iraq's oppressive tactics and how her country faced similar hardships under the domination of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whom I have developed the highest regard for, was able to develop a sizable coalition of Conservative Party members and New Labour party members behind the case for war and an endorsement for U.N. involvement.
Blair has worked with foreign leaders like Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar to build up support. Demonstrations and politicians either outside or within their own party, who are not convinced that all other options have been exhausted, must not intimidate Bush and Blair.
I'm a Gaullist at heart and a supporter of Chirac, but he has consistently opposed America's foreign policy interests by supporting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, for instance. France has also consistently cast votes in the U.N. General Assembly against America's most devoted ally, Israel.
On critical political issues such as capital punishment, global warming, international economic conferences and agreements through the G-7 and WTO and an anti-ballistic missile system, college activists have sided with the wrong people.
They couldn't bring themselves to take an uncompromising stance against Stalin by supporting democratic forces in the 1968 Czechoslovakian Spring. Where were they when overseas liberal democrats needed us the most? When America is at the brink of war, we must stand with the President.
Yes, war is a last resort. We have waited 12 years for the Iraqi dictator to cooperate and disarm. Is 12 years enough time to wait?