Dems Buy Power, Can They Use It?

The Record
November 7, 2007
By Charles Stile

State Sen. Loretta Weinberg took sharp aim in a recent candidate debate -- at her fellow Democrats.

"I want my party to start having a platform again. I want my party to start talking about things that are important," Weinberg said. "I want my party to be about something else than a money-making machine so that they can go on New York, Philadelphia television. I want us to talk about issues, what we stand for and why we stand for it."

Unfortunately, that kind of sentiment didn't play much of a role in this fall's campaign, in which New Jersey Democrats spent close to $40 million in special-interest cash to retain majority control of the Legislature. And some experts doubt that it will help to shape the agenda of the next Legislature, either.

Instead, the Democrats succeeded in making voters fat, numb and happy with $1,000-plus rebate checks -- not a bad way to help them forget all the indictments and arrests of Democratic public officials over the past year.

Debate over important hot-button issues like Governor Corzine's plan to squeeze billions of dollars from the turnpike and other state "assets" was virtually non-existent. And despite all the squawking about campaign finance reform, large blocks of cash were wheeled around to county parties and battleground races like a busy day of trading on Wall Street.

If anything, Tuesday's election demonstrated that pay-to-play cash is still the currency of political power. And since polls found that voters, though dissatisfied, were showing little inclination to switch party allegiances, there was no incentive to rock the boat.

It also meant there was no need for candidates to offer any dramatic pledges to change the status quo, said Peter Woolley, director of the Public Mind poll at Fairleigh Dickinson University. "It's to the advantage of the majority party to make the election about individual races," he said.

But there are a number of political veterans who say 2008 is actually the best time in nearly two decades to roll the dice and roil the waters with reform.

The new Democratic majority now has enormous advantages -- strong majorities in both houses, which include a new generation of freshman lawmakers. The Democrats also have a governor with strong approval ratings, while New Jersey Republicans are bereft of cash and saddled with George Bush and an unpopular war in Iraq.

Instead of taking a risk-free path to the next election cycle, the Democrats should reconsider their priorities and put forward a progressive, family-oriented agenda -- universal health care, a more equitable school funding formula, an energy policy that weighs consumer and environmental concerns with business needs -- that could set the stage for Democratic Party control for the next decade. Stop worrying about campaign contributions. They will come.

"We know what the problems are. We know some of the baseline initiatives to be taken," said former Democratic Gov. Jim Florio. He noted that Corzine has already laid out the foundation of change, with commissions evaluating health care, school funding and energy reform -- even though they barely got a mention on the campaign trail.

"Now is the time to deal with them," Florio said. "I think the Legislature is ready to do it. I think the Legislature will be prepared."

Pressing an aggressive policy agenda, however, still faces significant hurdles. Corzine, who contributed heavily to the Democratic race, is facing stiff resistance to his asset monetization plan, which he argues will raise billions to pay off the state's debt -- which, in turn, will free up billions more for children's health care, highway infrastructure, school aid and tuition reform.

If Corzine's plan fails, the options become limited. Since tax hikes are highly unlikely, cuts in government programs could be one source of revenue. But no governor in the last 30 years has dared to make the kind of deep cuts that yield significant savings. And even though some Democrats privately agree that the $2.2 billion rebate program is a costly drain that solves nothing, cutting it will be a hard sell.

But cutting rebates could be the kind of political risk worth taking. To copy a page from the Florio playbook from the early 1990s, maybe it's time to take the hard political hit next year and eliminate the rebates entirely. That would free up $2 billion for a down-payment on the ambitious agenda.

The money could mean extra aid to suburban school districts without siphoning aid from court-protected districts in urban areas -- a key goal in the proposed school funding overhaul. It could supplement the potential loss of federal health insurance subsidies for children. It could expedite work on the state's 10 most dangerous bridges. It could pay for more generous tuition aid for working-class families.

Those specific options can be debated later. But Weinberg and others say the conversation about a new agenda should start right away.

Weinberg says she is a realist and knows that fund raising is a necessary evil. "I'm no Alice in Wonderland," she said. But tangible accomplishments also win voters and support, too.

"We will be just as successful with candidates doing it that way, without all the money," she said.