Dr. Joseph R. Marbach's blog

I am pleased to report the results from the first national poll conducted by Environmental Studies Program in the College of Arts and Sciences at Seton Hall University. The poll found that 89 percent of respondents said that the environment and energy issues impact the quality of their family’s life a lot, while 7 percent said that it impacted them a little and only 3 percent said that it had no impact on them at all. This poll also found that 70 percent of the respondents are following the presidential election and the candidates’ positions on the environment and energy very closely.

Respondents believed that economic strength and environmental protection are linked, with 41 percent of all respondents stating that stronger environmental protection is more likely to help the economy. About a quarter of respondents (27 percent) believe that stronger environmental protection is more likely to hurt the economy. 

For the past few weeks, I've watched with fascination as politician after politician have appeared on a beach or a boardwalk and declared their opposition to off-shore drilling.  It is a classic example of the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) phenomenon.  In New Jersey, opposing off-shore drilling has become a valance issue upon which Democrats and Republicans alike can agree.

The budget proposed by Gov. Jon Corzine has produced myriad negative reactions, featuring various interests seeking to limit the impact of the cuts he has identified. Lost in the minutia of how much money will be saved by eliminating various executive departments and agencies, or how small towns will fare under this proposal is a larger question about the role of government in society. This budget present the citizenry of the state a unique opportunity to re-examine the fundamental questions regarding what we expect from government and what we are willing to pay for those services.

For too many years, New Jerseyans have been enjoying the benefits of an ever-expanding state government without paying for the actual costs of this growth. Both political parties are at fault, relying on one-time gimmicks, such as borrowing against the tobacco settlement funds or bonding to pay for operating costs, or failing to adequately fund obligations such as the unemployment fund or employee pension.

In preparing for a presentation I gave at the New Jersey Political Science Association meeting last week, I spent some time reviewing the exit poll data compiled by the New York Times. In assessing whether or not moving the New Jersey presidential primary from June to February was worth the reported $ 10 million it would cost state and local governments, I looked at the turnout rate and specifically the number of new primary voters it produced.

According to the Times poll, 19 percent of the 1.1 million voters participating in the Democratic primary identified themselves as "Independent," in essence unaffiliated voters. Extrapolating form the numbers, this means that approximately 210,000 new Democrats decided to participate in the primary process. Not surprisingly, a plurality of these voters supported Barack Obama (49%), while Hillary Clinton drew 43 percent and seven percent went to John Edwards

In an op-ed piece I wrote for the Bergen Record on Sunday, January 13, 2008, I observed that Governor Corzine's financial restructuring plan was taking a page out of the state's history.  From 1830 until the 1860s, the state relied on a deal it struck with the Camden & Amboy rail line to fund most of the operations of state government.  The deal granted the C&A a monopoly on the highly profitable route between Philadelphia and New York.  In exchange for this grant, the railroad provided the state with stock in the company and guaranteed it an annual dividend that amounted to over ten percent of the state's operating budget.  In addition, the state taxed riders.  The total income from this deal provided the state with more than half its annual budget.

The costs were largely passed on to out-of-state riders, who because of the monopoly paid fares that were estimated to be four times higher than comparable rates charged by railroads in states that permitted competition.

In a recent taping of Power and Politics, I was asked by Jim McQueeny to list the top five political stories of 2007.  I invite readers to share with me their lists.

In reverse order, the top five political stories for 2007 were:

This past week another voice calling for ethics reform was heard.  The Prudential Business Ethics Center at Rutgers University released its report detailing the costs of corruption in New Jersey and outlined a number of proposals to reduce the level of corruption, and hence, its costs.  This report voices concerns from a group, the business community, which is often dismissed as self-interested, but nonetheless has a tremendous impact on health and well-being of the state.

As I launch this weekly endeavor to highlight and hopefully explain various political processes, events and phenomena that affect New Jersey, I must take a moment to express my gratitude to the publishers of politicker.com for affording me the opportunity to extend my role as an educator to a broader audience. My goal in writing this column is to bring an academic perspective to developments in New Jersey politics that will inform and challenge readers. I claim no particular inside information, and my contact with those who wield power in the state is marginal, at best. Nonetheless, I believe that I can offer readers a perspective that is often lacking in the dialogue that surrounds politics in our state.