New Jersey Punished For Voting Blue
From yesterday’s Baristanet:
1, President Bush had requested Homeland Security funding be allocated to the states based upon risk assessment
2. Senate Democrats held out for a funding formula written by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) that ensured funding would be spread around to all states, regardless of risk.
3. Senator’s Corzine and Lautenberg voted in favor of the bill based upon the Leahy homeland security funding formula that produced a cut in New Jersey’s allocation.
4. New York, a very blue state, voted for Kerry by a wider margin than New Jersey in 2004, just happens to have two Democrat senators, Clinton and Schumer and somehow they managed to secure a 344 percent increase in homeland security funding.
5. Washington and Los Angeles received double the amounts of their previous grants. Chicago and Boston will receive about a third more in homeland security funding. All “blue” cities in "blue" states, all represented by Democrats in the Senate.
So yes, you could say New Jersey was punished for voting blue - not for the last election, but as a result of the previous two – the ones in which Corzine and Lautenberg won their senate seats.
New Jersey is being punished by our poor representation in the senate. Corzine and Lautenberg are automatically against anything the President proposes, so they sided with the Democrat Leahy, even though the end result hurt New Jersey.
Clinton and Schumer did their homework and brought additional homeland security funds back to New York. After the vote, Corzine and Lautenberg held press conferences to lament New Jersey’s loss.
Our previous posts on homeland security funding with links:
Action Required - Corzine Releases Statement To The Press
State Spending – It’s A Matter Of Choice
New Jersey Deserves Better
Corzine – Lautenberg To Blame For Funding Cuts To NJ
The Democrats Financial Mismanagement
The good news: Essex County got the largest grant of any county in New Jersey in a special federal disbursement for homeland security.Since the question was asked, we’ll answer, but first some facts. We did a number of posts on this subject back in December when congress was voting on the allocation of homeland security funds, so we don’t have to look too far for information.
The bad news: New Jersey's getting about a third less homeland security money from the feds than we got last year.
Could it be punishment for voting blue in the last election?
1, President Bush had requested Homeland Security funding be allocated to the states based upon risk assessment
2. Senate Democrats held out for a funding formula written by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) that ensured funding would be spread around to all states, regardless of risk.
3. Senator’s Corzine and Lautenberg voted in favor of the bill based upon the Leahy homeland security funding formula that produced a cut in New Jersey’s allocation.
4. New York, a very blue state, voted for Kerry by a wider margin than New Jersey in 2004, just happens to have two Democrat senators, Clinton and Schumer and somehow they managed to secure a 344 percent increase in homeland security funding.
5. Washington and Los Angeles received double the amounts of their previous grants. Chicago and Boston will receive about a third more in homeland security funding. All “blue” cities in "blue" states, all represented by Democrats in the Senate.
So yes, you could say New Jersey was punished for voting blue - not for the last election, but as a result of the previous two – the ones in which Corzine and Lautenberg won their senate seats.
New Jersey is being punished by our poor representation in the senate. Corzine and Lautenberg are automatically against anything the President proposes, so they sided with the Democrat Leahy, even though the end result hurt New Jersey.
Clinton and Schumer did their homework and brought additional homeland security funds back to New York. After the vote, Corzine and Lautenberg held press conferences to lament New Jersey’s loss.
Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ), who is running for Governor, said that if elected, he would work with the congressional delegation to fix the funding formula "to make sure that people in Homeland Security all the way to the top understand the exposure [to an attack] we have here."Corzine wants us to beleive he'll fix the senate funding formula once he's no longer a senator. Does anyone who follows the news actually beleive any of Corzine's lines?
Our previous posts on homeland security funding with links:
Action Required - Corzine Releases Statement To The Press
State Spending – It’s A Matter Of Choice
New Jersey Deserves Better
Corzine – Lautenberg To Blame For Funding Cuts To NJ
The Democrats Financial Mismanagement
Posted by Enlighten-NewJersey @ 11:01 PM
|
11 Comments:
Priceless......just priceless:
Monday, June 27, 2005
Mr. Chip Meany
Code Enforcement Officer
Town of Weare, New Hampshire
Fax 603-529-4554
Dear Mr. Meany,
I am proposing to build a hotel at 34 Cilley Hill Road in the Town of Weare. I would like to know the process your town has for allowing such a development.
Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, "Kelo vs. City of New London" clears the way for this land to be taken by the Government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare.
As I understand it your town has five people serving on the Board of Selectmen. Therefore, since it will require only three people to vote in favor of the use of eminent domain I am quite confident that this hotel development is a viable project. I am currently seeking investors and hotel plans from an architect. Please let me know the proper steps to follow to proceed in accordance with the law in your town.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC
But I diverge, per regarding your acrual post, as I said before, having Cozine as Senator in Washington is like having a lifeguard at a car wash...and I ain't that small froggy....
change that acrual to actual
E--
As usual, on the money.
Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.
Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."
Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
# # #
Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC
Phone 310-593-4843
logan@freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.com
It certainly doesn't help our case that we're spending homeland security money on garbage trucks
The garbage truck fiasco was brought to you by the City of Newark, a Bastion of Blue.
Wow. You have got to be paid to do your blogging. Only someone getting paid for it could spare the time to construct such a tissue of obfuscation. I barely had time to track just one of the smokescreens. Yes, Senator Corzine voted for:
S.2845
Title: A bill to reform the intelligence community and the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, and for other purposes.
So did 88 other Senators. It passed 89-2 with 9 not voting. Would voting against it have done any good for New Jersey with 88 others voting for it? And if he had voted against it, you would now be saying that he voted against the bill to reform the intelligence community as recommended by the 9/11 commission.
I know how politics works. You're playing games to create certain impressions, but they are false impressions as usual. Very dishonest of you, actually.
FD, How we wish we were being paid. By the way, you seem to have time on your hands to not only comment extensively on this blog and others, but to keep a blog of your own. Who pays you?
To answer your other question: “Would voting against it have done any good for New Jersey with 88 others voting for it?” If Corzine and Lautenberg didn’t think the bill was good for the country and good for New Jersey, they should have voted “no” on the bill. Voting against the majority has never bothered the two senators before.
But long before the vote, Corzine and Lautenberg should have gone to Leahy and had him back down on his funding formula, that doled out homeland security dollars as pork for senators to bring home to voters. The funds should have been allocated based upon risk as the President proposed. Leahy thought otherwise.
The other “blue state” senators managed to understand the implication of the Leahy funding formula and secured additional homeland security funds for their states. Not Corzine and Lautenberg. If you go back and check the record, you’ll discover after the vote New Jersey’s two senators found out from the media New Jersey would lose funding.
That’s what we would call poor representation. Spin it any way you like, but facts are facts my friend. You have not pointed out a single error in our post. The only thing “false” is your impression that Corzine and Lautenberg have been doing a good job for New Jersey.
The liberal cracks about New Jersey being short changed because it voted "blue" in 2004 is the politcal game being played. Played poorly, we might add.
Well, I do not really believe this will have success.
photography class | austin texas moving companies | ikea murphy bed
Post a Comment
<< Home