The Paradox of Christie's Decision Not To Run for President

I find it ironic that Chris Christie's final announcement that he won't seek the presidency next year makes him that much more desirable in many voters' eyes.

In his speech today, he reiterated his sense of a need to fulfill his obligation to New Jersey's residents by completing his term and finishing the job he started. He said it wasn't yet his time.

For many voters, his commitment and sense of duty set him apart.

And if he had announced today that he had changed his mind, and decided to run, he would have been seen by many as simply expedient. Not to mention that he'd have reversed himself on a series of declarations that he was not running.

Which would make him less trustworthy.

So Christie's decision seemed to me to result in the height of irony.

Chris Christie's Reagan Library Speech 27September 2011

For those of you who missed it, or want to see it again, here is NJ Governor Chris Christie's keynote address from the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California last night. His speech is in two parts, with Q&A in two more videos.

Part Two of address

Q&A Part One

Q&A Part Two

I watched as much of it live as I could. First on Fox, which broke for a commercial. So I turned to CSPAN, which is the source for these videos, courtesy of a YouTube channel contributor.

About half way through his address, I began to feel that Christie might announce, or reply to a question in the affirmative, that he had reconsidered running for the GOP presidential nomination. But he didn't.

Instead, it was simply a very presidential address from a state governor with some major, although unfinished, accomplishments.

It's perhaps now easier, since this was a national platform, for other, non-NJ US citizens to see why Christie is so well-regarded among conservatives and conservative pundits. He does seem to state things clearly, display leadership by his actions, and strike a tone that is at once less combative, yet more effective, vis a vis Wonderboy.

As I listened to and watched Christie speak, I was struck by how different is his style than the current Oval Office occupant. None of the black Baptist-style oratorical harangues or phrasing styles. Rather, very much like Reagan, a more reasoned, balanced, deliberate style. Less emotive sing-song linguistic tricks and more substance.

Regarding Chris Christie's Rumored Presidential Run

I had an impassioned call from a public union employee here in NJ this morning. She is concerned that,

"the anti-Christ is running for president."

Of course, she is referring to this week's rumors that NJ governor and enemy #1 of the state's public sector unions, Chris Christie, may be reconsidering his refusal to run for the GOP presidential nomination.

My friend then insisted that Christie is "never in New Jersey," which I immediately branded as a lie concocted by her union bosses. He may travel around the country to support fellow GOP officials, raise funds, and generally boost voter awareness of himself for some future presidential run. But that's not illegal. And my friend confessed to having no actual personal knowledge of Christie's calendar or travel schedule.

Further, I pointed out to her that, if she really believes her union's screeds against Christie, then she should be glad he might be elected out of his current office.

Then she contended that he "hates New Jersey." This, too, is, of course, a lie. The guy has ceaselessly explained that he ran for governor because he loves his home state and wanted to do what he could to save it from fiscal ruin.

But as to the recent rumors that he's now considering running in the GOP race for the presidential nomination, well, I don't think he's going to enter that race.

Is he tempted by Rick Perry's awful debate performances? Probably. And Perry's troubling off-the-cuff gaffes? Yes.

But don't think that the next Rick Perry won't be Chris Christie when it comes to gaffes. Not to mention Christie's own record.

Perry is a two-term governor of a state which has seen huge, if low-paying, job growth under his governorship.

When you think of Christie running for president, two words ought to come to mind:

Sarah Palin

Like the former Alaska governor, Christie has yet to complete a full term, let alone be re-elected. And his budgetary accomplishments, while important, are fairly modest so far. His fight with the teachers' union, while bearing fruit, isn't yet enough to solve New Jersey's $20B pension funding gap.

Everyone in New Jersey knows that, for Christie's public sector union pension and health care funding crusade to be complete, he has to take on the firefighters and police unions, too. Then get re-elected.

Christie has set New Jersey on a new, post-Corzine and -McGreavey course, but it's not yet enough to declare victory.

Then you have Christie's vulnerability, shared with Rick Perry, on foreign policy issues.

Personally, I think Christie is right to reject efforts to draft him. Even if Tom Kean is correct in saying Christie is reconsidering, I think the current governor will be making a big mistake if he decides, after all, to run for president.

Chris Christie- Not Yet Ready For Prime Time

Only yesterday I wrote this post concerning some Iowa GOP donors visiting New Jersey governor Christie, allegedly to induce him to enter his party's presidential contest.

Yet, only a day later, Christie stumbled badly as detailed here. In a move that simply defies explanation, Christie and his wife used a state helicopter to fly from Trenton to Montvale, in the northern part of the state, to several innings of their son's baseball game. The article rubs some salt in the wound by noting that, upon landing, the Christies couldn't bother to walk, but, were driven the hundred yards or so from the landing site to the bleachers.

As you'd expect, state Democratic legislators are having a field day. And why not?

At the least, Christie should have smart enough to have either scheduled some official business in Montvale or another nearby locale, or at least publicly state that he was reimbursing the state for the $2,500/hour expense of the helicopter.

But even that second option would have displayed incredibly poor instincts on the governor's part.

With what is going on in New Jersey in terms of spending cuts, Christie would be foolish to suggest that, on his publicly-funded salary, he could afford such an expensive luxury as a state-owned helicopter ride to watch only part of his son's ball game.

It may seem like a minor gaffe, but I have a feeling this could become a serious liability for Christie. Much as was former North Carolina governor Mark Sanford's admission not only of marital infidelity, but perjury on his state expense reports for his trips to South America to visit his mistress.

Before that fall from grace, Sanford was, like Christie is now, a beacon of presidential hopes among the nation's GOP governors.

How could Christie have been so insensitive and blind as to not comprehend the impression he has made by using a state helicopter for a personal visit?

Chris Christie for President?

Fox News featured as a headline news story Tuesday evening that several Iowan GOP contributors were having dinner with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to discuss a presidential campaign. I haven't seen anything yet on the outcome, as I write this on Wednesday afternoon. However, upon hearing of the dinner, several images came to mind regarding a Christie run for the White House.

First, of course, there would be Christie having to explain and defend his sudden about-face on the issue. If he lost the nomination, or, if nominated, lost the general election, good luck getting re-elected as governor.

Then there's the expected comparisons with and to Sarah Palin. You can just hear the Democratic wags saying the GOP moved downscale. Last time a half-term governor was running as VP. Now they've moved a partial-term governor up to the top of the ticket.

Then, fair or not, there's the visual of Christie on a stage with Wonderboy. After many nasty jokes about Bob Taft, Christie's going to look like a beached whale next to the black, comparatively-trimmer current president.

Finally, there's the issue of how the GOP can most successfully unseat the First Rookie. Since he came to office with so little life and no executive experience, it's unlikely that the best approach to defeat him is to offer someone with only slightly more executive and government experience.

Why run a first-term governor, no matter how popular, when you have Tim Pawlenty, who was re-elected in a blue state?

I hope Christie continues to ignore the cries for his candidacy, and shuns any effort to draft him. Much as I like him and think he's doing fairly good work here in NJ, I don't think he's the Republicans' best hope for 2012.

Municipal Unions Against State Budget Cuts & Reforms

It's been a big week for Republican governors who are trying to rein in budgets and raise public awareness concerning the special pension and benefit deals public sector unions have received. Here are two videos of Chris Christie speaking at the American Enterprise Institute.

Christie discussing being 'vaporized' for touching the third rail of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid insolvency as currently designed and operated....

Then we have newly-elected Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker moving decisively to have the now Republican-controlled legislature enact a law to revoke collective bargaining for non-wage issues by public sector unions, except for police and firemen, and require said employees to pay more equitable contributions for pension and healthcare benefits.

The result has been teachers walking out and converging on Walker's home. Plus the Wisconsin senate Democrats decamping outside the state to frustrate the quorum required to pass the law. And, to complete the comedy, Wonderboy stating that Walker is engaging in police and fire 'union busting,' despite the fact that those two unions aren't involved.

Hilariously, liberals are accusing Walker and the legislature of being undemocratic, comparing the union's role to that of Egyptian protesters. They overlook the fact that Walker and the legislature are duly elected. That's the process that has credibility and standing. Not Democratic state senators running away in an attempt to avoid facing reality.

Do you think those legislators will be re-elected for that behavior?

Even the political reporter on CNBC, Red John Harwood, and, appearing on CNBC, NBC's liberal Meet The Press host, David Gregory, both admitted that it's fairly clear that these actions are necessary if states are to avoid bankruptcy. Harwood said it's simply a matter of whether or not the political will now exists among voters to enforce the cuts and required pain on public union members in order to end the excesses.

What strikes me as notable is the tin ear Wonderboy is showing on this issue. It's becoming more apparent with each new crisis that he is less of an accomplished politician, and more of a sort of political sprinter. Good over a short course, but fades in the long distances. He just doesn't seem to realize that governing, especially now, in a too-long profligate US, requires honesty and making tough, unpopular choices. Not simply demonizing a governor who is trying to balance a state budget in the face of coddled municipal union employees.

Chris Christie & The NY-NJ Rail Tunnel Cancellation

It's been educational watching reactions of various groups to NJ governor Chris Christie's recent announcement of cancellation of a NY-NJ rail tunnel.

You can read the details elsewhere. Essentially, NY and NJ each put up about $3B to fund their share of a new rail tunnel from Secaucus into midtown Manhattan. The remainder would have been paid by the federal government, except for cost overruns.

Christie pointed to a recent study estimating some truly phenomenal expected cost increases that would have saddled the state with perhaps double its initial expected expense.

Economist Paul Krugman excoriated Christie for his decision. Other liberals piled on, contending that Christie was killing jobs by ending the project.

What is evident from these criticisms is that their primary concern is for jobs at any price. No matter who pays for those jobs, or if the work they do is really the best use of resources.

Could it be that, being construction jobs in a blue state, the fact that these will be Davis-Bacon, union-wage jobs has something to do with so many liberals attacking Christie for his decision?

New Jersey is in terrible financial trouble. Christie is being prudent by avoiding a project bound to experience phenomenal cost overruns, which NJ taxpayers will bear.

Here's a different, but important question about the new tunnel.

Why spend so much money to build another rail tunnel into Manhattan, when, for probably less money, and a different tax structure, some of those jobs or businesses could be lured to NJ. In our current economy, with so many knowledge- and information-related jobs, why are we building rail tunnels under a river, instead of facilitating more telecommuting and internet-accessed jobs which won't require any commuting whatsoever?

For the truly energy-conscious, isn't that the greenest manner of job creation?

As it stands now, liberal Democrats and union officials want Christie to make taxpayers liable for the payrolls of construction workers, no matter if it bankrupts the state. It becomes a simple matter of wealth transfer from NJ residents, through their taxes, to union construction workers.

That's some jobs program, isn't it? The ultimate cost of the project may not make it economically feasible, but, in the meantime, a lot of blue-collar jobs will be created and paid for by the public sector.

That may be the way the federal government does things, owning the nation's monetary printing presses, but it doesn't work at the state level.

Chris Christie Caves On Property Tax Limits

I read with some degree of shock in yesterday's Wall Street Journal that New Jersey's Governor, Chris Christie, caved in to Democrats on the property tax issue.

For months, Christie has been steadfastly promoting a hardline, unyielding 2.5% property tax increase limit by way of a state constitutional amendment. Commentaries on his fight with the Democratically-controlled legislature noted how porous and easily-evaded the cap they proposed would be.

Guess what? Christie blinked and folded. He gave into the legislative route, with its many easy avenues of escape for the state's legislature. Among the reasons they can override a 2% cap are: "health care, pensions, state emergencies and increased school enrollment."

Furthermore, the law allows a simple majority, rather than the proposed amendment's supermajority, to suspend the cap.

The Journal piece noted that New Jerseyans know what's going on,

"Taxpayers seem to understand the danger. In a Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Press Media poll after the budge and tax compromise, three-quarters believed the state's tax problems would persist, and 54% said they favored Mr. Christie's constitutional cap compared to the 35% who preferred the one that passed."

I think Christie has made a colossal mistake. If he thinks the Democrat-dominated state legislature won't slow roll him on spending and cause this cap to be liberally pierced and rendered moot, he, and the rest of the state's residents and taxpayers, are in for a nasty surprise.

More On Christie's NJ Budget Cuts

Yesterday's post attracted some attention, including being linked on some other blogs and websites in NJ.

According to some press accounts, Christie's poll numbers fell on the news of his cuts.

Given the shocking numbers contained in the Wall Street Journal article, from which I quoted in yesterday's post, it's rich to read another Journal piece, specifically related to Christie's plans.

In last Wednesday's Journal, an article noted,

"Unions representing police officers and firefighters have said hundreds of their members would likely retire earlier than intended with passage of the bills, which could become a public safety issue."

So typical of union leaders to issue empty threats.

Like these older retirees won't be immediately replaced with fewer, younger, less expensive workers? With defined contribution pension plans, rather than defined benefit plans?

How will that compromise public safety? Sounds like it's going to immediately enhance public fiscal safety!

The teacher friend to whom I referred in yesterday's post was shocked to learn that none other than JFK was responsible for allowing state and municipal workers to unionize. She didn't understand the implications, until I explained that the change meant government union members then had reasons to vote for candidates who promised more union jobs and lusher benefits.

In effect, candidates ran on platforms of favoring union members over the voters who would pay for the benefits. Of course, when government workers were represented by a union, it became easier for them to vote in a bloc for labor-oriented, usually Democratic candidates.

It's quite believable that, in the very short term, many voters are against Christie's cuts. Some are government union workers. Others, many others, have family or friends who will be affected. Still others probably are scared that services will decline.

Well, here's a message to all of them, and especially the last group. New Jersey has literally been living on borrowed time and money for decades. Kean and Whitman contributed to this mess, just as Florio, McGreevey and Corzine. They all lied to voters about the affordability of a growing governmental budget and government employment levels.

Now harsh medicine is required, and people are balking.

I recall the initial months of Ronald Reagan's first budget cuts. He wasn't universally popular at first. But as the economy got moving and inflation abated, he was justly accorded credit for the results.

I'm sure Christie will be, too, in time. But before then, a lot of unnecessary state and local workers will feel the pain of job loss, and coddled voters will have to learn to live with state and local government service levels they can actually afford.

New Jersey's Governor Christie Begins The Budget Cuts

New Jersey's public employee unions have begun their firestorm of protests over newly-elected Governor Chris Christie's budget cuts.


As the Wall Street Journal noted, these aren't cuts in the growth in items in outgoing governor Corzine's last budget, but several billion dollars of absolute cuts in spending.

Not surprisingly, this means programs which involve and fund state and local government employees. Unionized employees.

On that note, the Journal's lead staff editorial on Friday provided instructive details on the average compensation, nationwide, of public-sector versus private-sector workers.

The editorial observes,

"According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), from 1998 to 2008 public employee compensation grew by 28.6%, compared with 19.3% for private workers. In the recession year of 2009, with almost no inflation and record budget deficits, more than half the states awarded pay raises to their employees. Even as deficits in state capitals widen and are forcing cuts in services, few politicians are willing to eliminate these pay inequities that enrich the few who wield political power.....

This means that for every $1 in pay and benefits a private employee earned, a state or local government worker received $1.45."

The piece goes on to state that public employees earn about 1/3 more than their private sector counterparts, but also receive 70% higher benefit levels.

But that's not all. A good third of the editorial discussed 'double-dippers,' teachers who retire, then are immediately rehired and begin building a second pension. The article mentions,

"Across the state, Ohio's State Teachers Retirement System paid out more than $741 million in pension benefits last school year to 15,857 faculty and staff members who were still working for school systems and building up a second retirement plan."

I had a long discussion this weekend with a local school system teacher about New Jersey's woes and Christie's budget cuts.

The teacher complained that large surpluses of unspent money in the educational system were being cut by Christie, which will require program cuts and, thus, teacher layoffs. She took a while to understand that those unspent funds weren't the property of the NJ school system- they are taxpayer funds allocated- by a prior, free-spending administration- but not yet spent.

She and her colleagues are angry with what they perceive as broken promises regarding teacher layoffs from Christie.

I finally had to drive home to her several times that there is now a very simple, clear metric that instantly illustrates the problem, and is comprehensible to taxpayers. That metric is the one appearing above in this post, used by the Journal editorial.

By simply comparing averages of private and public sector compensation, health and pension benefits, eye-opening differences become clear.

Thus, I told my friend, taxpayers really no longer care about the rates of changes in teacher, police or firefighter compensation and benefits. They notice the incredibly more lush deals the government, unionized workers receive.

When I put it that way, she understood why it was unlikely that her union's pensions would not take some sort of haircut between now and her retirement, nearly 20 years in the future.

In fact, she even agreed that, eventually, taxpayers will want government union employees' contracts to offer no better compensation, nor benefits, than the average of private sector workers in the state.

It's a very compelling argument.

She asked what I thought would happen if Christie is defeated after his first term, and replaced by another spend-borrow-tax Democratic governor? I asked her the same question, and she thought a moment. Then slowly realized the horrible implication and said she thought the state would veer closer to, and maybe into, bankruptcy.

This is why I think Christie will, eventually, make progress. The metrics on taxes and state-and-local worker compensation are compelling. There's no other way out for New Jersey but to cut taxes and spending. And much of that spending is going to have to come from government employees.

As I'm writing this, Democratic Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell is taking Christie, and New Jersey, to task for not raising taxes! He asserts that NJ will have to raise taxes, and notes a gasoline tax that hasn't been raised since 1989.

It's a typical attitude for a Democratic governor to expect citizens to just pay more taxes, rather than consider their income their own, and expect state government services for the least expense possible.

It's not only teachers. Christie has correctly identified the duplicative layers of county, township, and local governmental entities. They typically all have police and administrative personnel, budgets and regulations. Given some time, some of that spending and staffing can be pared back, with little to no effect on life for the average state citizen.

NJ Governor Chris Christie On CNBC

Chris Christie appeared on CNBC yesterday morning. Hopefully, the CNBC clip is still able to be viewed. If so, it can be seen here.

In case it won't play, here's Christie's first public interview, also on CNBC, last month. Suffice to say, he is doing everything he promised last month....and more....much more.



My jaw dropped when Christie cited those job statistics. Last year, the state lost 121,000 private sector jobs, but created 11,300 new public ones.

That's the sort of liberal nonsense Corzine advocated and enabled. Christie is right to highlight it and stop it.

This is what fiscal honestly looks like. If you live in California, New York, Illinois, Michigan or Massachusetts, take a good, long look.

It's eventually coming to your state, as well.

Chris Christie On CNBC This Morning

Newly-elected NJ Republican governor Chris Christie gave his first interview this morning. He chose as his venue CNBC, indicating a serious business and investment angle to his message.

What ensued was high comedy, if you were watching and listening closely.

First, the good news. Christie was absolutely adamant that he will NOT raise taxes. Period. To paraphrase his repeated reply to questions on the subject,

'Raising taxes is the easy part. That's already been done. We can't do that anymore. Our state's tax rates are too high already.'

On a program, and network, which is in passionate, big sloppy-kisses love with deposed NJ Democratic governor Jon Corzine, Christie wasted no time informing viewers, and his inquisitors, of some of the tricks Corzine & Co. performed, to the detriment of NJ taxpayers.

For example, Corzine's people wired out funds to municipalities on the morning of Christie's inauguration, so concerned were they about spending money in a way that could not be revoked or frozen by the new governor.

Christie detailed Corzine's tax and spending increases. He took full advantage of being the marquee guest at that time slot and savaged Corzine's gubernatorial record.

What was comedic, however, was the constant- and I mean constant- insistence of the CNBC co-anchors that Christie would just have to raise taxes, wouldn't he?

The Hispanic male co-anchor must have asked Christie at least four times if he would raise taxes. Wouldn't raising them 'just a little' help close the budget gap?

Becky Quick, also a liberal, chimed in two or three times, too, with the same question.

Only fiscal and political conservative Melissa Lee, dragged onto the set for this segment, focused on asking Christie how he planned to grow NJ's economy out of its current mess?

At one point, though, Christie drew himself up and repeated his campaign promises of smaller government, lower spending and taxes. He said that everyone voting in the election knew what he promised, and it shouldn't surprise them that he intends to do just those things.

In reply to the constant barrage of questions and diatribes that he simply must raise taxes in NJ to balance the budget, Christie gave a repetitive tutorial on how spending had gotten out of control, taxes were raised to attempt to close the gap, and, as a result, wealthy residents had left the state.

At one point, he silenced the co-anchors by citing the statistic that some $70B of wealth had left the state in the past year, seeking lower tax domiciles. That's why, Christie noted, taxes cannot and will not be increased.

He also hammered away on regulation, insisting that some needless rules which make doing business harder or more expensive in NJ, will be dropped.

Another topic on which he held forth- one of my favorites- was the amount and expense of state and local government in New Jersey. Citing the number of municipalities with separate police, fire and other services, and taxing authorities, Christie contends that NJ is perhaps the most over-governed state in the union. He cited one example of a town and its education board both possessing 'public works' departments.

As a current NJ resident, I can attest to the hope Christie gave for the right kind of change. Lower spending. Lower taxes.

Change we NJ voters and taxpayers can believe in.

The Conundrum of The New Jersey Voter

It's tough to be a voter in New Jersey this year. One really feels there's no practical, quality choice in the gubernatorial election.

The Democrats are, of course, propping up failed liberal Jon Corzinne. After being kicked out as co-head of Goldman Sachs' years ago, Jon bought a New Jersey Senate seat. Tiring of that, and not expecting the Democrats to retake the upper chamber, he then bought the governor's seat.

Perhaps he thinks getting his ticket punched there, twice, gives him presidential credentials. Or maybe he's just bored with working for a living, so political elective office makes sense.

Who knows?

Either way, he's taken the wreckage left by the last governor, who resigned under an ethics cloud, and worsened it. New Jersey is probably closer behind California in its fiscal mess than most people, or state citizens, realize.

Then we have "Chris Christie."

What a guy! A product of the Christie (no relation) Todd Whitman-influenced state Republican party, he's been coached to alter his positions like a custom-made suit.

I never trust someone who flips on right-to-life issues suddenly, and without reason. Christie did this so that a pro-life stance, his original view, wouldn't hinder his chances in a solidly Blue state.

However, as an independent who registers Republican, even I can see how Christie is corrupt even before winning the governorship.

The reports of his cutting a deal to spare his brother an SEC prosecution ring true. So does his paying off Justice department cronies with no-bid contracts for outsourced legal work.

Sure, sure, he got a bunch of convictions as a federal prosecutor. Sure, so did Rudy Giuliani.

But I think the comparisons stop there.

You knew what Giuliani was for, and against, even if you didn't live in New York City. Christie merely mouths platitudes about lower taxes and spending, but offers no solid plans for such empty concepts.

This is a state in the choke-hold of lawyers, of either party, in the state legislature. It's going to take a lot to restore any shred of fiscal rectitude in the state.

Faced with these unappetizing choices, one considers the independent, Chris Daggett. Daggett actually details how he'll cut a range of taxes and extend the sales tax to more items, without raising the rate. Of course, there's no plan for spending cuts in his campaign, either.

But the real question is how to vote without feeling you've rewarded vagueness, incompetence, or corruption, or wasted your vote.

I can't vote for Corzinne. Just isn't going to happen. I never liked him or his policies, and they have demonstrably failed.

I voted for Lonnegan in the Republican primary. I don't like Christie, and I don't trust him. With only a prosecutorial career and no clear ideas on governing, voting for him is like buying a pig in a poke. And, no, I'm not poking fun at his weight or girth.

But I just have doubts about voting for Daggett. It's a classic prisoners' dilemma. If I knew a lot of other voters, disgusted with both of the other clowns, would choose Daggett, then so would I.

I mean, how much worse can things get? And several local and regional news organizations have endorsed his candidacy.

But if I vote for Daggett and Corzinne wins, then I did waste my vote.

but if I vote for Christie, I'm not voting with a clear conscience.

It's all very disturbing. A microcosm, really, of my disappointments with both parties on the national level, too.