LIVE BLOGGING AT BLUEJERSEY.NET
Debate available online at WBGO.org and on the radio in tri-state metropolitan area at Jazz 88.3 FM
It begins at 8 p.m.
A good rundown of Forrester’s lies thus far below the fold…
RHETORIC: “Senator Corzine has said repeatedly well only as a last resort would he raise the gas tax … folks you get the message, run for cover. We can’t afford to increase taxes in New Jersey[.]”
REALITY: Forrester Himself Said He Was Willing To Raise The Gas Tax.
* 2005: Forrester Said That He Would Raise The Gas Tax If Left With No Other Viable Option. Forrester said he would raise the gas tax if left with no other viable option. In responding to the AAA for their member’s publication, Forrester wrote, “I will not raise the gas tax until I have explored every other viable option. We will not need to raise the gas tax when we start treating the Transportation Trust Fund like a trust fund.” [AAA North Jersey Traveler, Sept. /Oct. 2005, pg 5]
* 2005: In A Second Instance, Forrester Said That He Would Raise The Gas Tax If Left With No Other Viable Option. In responding to questions from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, Forrester wrote, “I will not raise the gas tax until I have explored every other viable option. We will not need to raise the gas tax when we start treating the Transportation Trust Fund like a trust fund.” [New Jersey State League of Municipalities Website, as of 9/05]
RHETORIC: “We need this [30 in 3] – New Jersey families need to make sure they can plan for their futures stay in New Jersey.”
REALITY: Forrester’s Plan Would Give The Biggest Tax Breaks To The Wealthiest Homeowners.
* Relief Under Forrester’s Plan Is Not Targeted To Middle Class. Forrester said his plan would mean “a thirty percent state pickup of property tax burden for homeowners” – including the wealthiest. Tom Moran of the Star-Ledger wrote that Forrester “would extend the rebates to all homeowners, including the wealthiest families in the state.” Moran later wrote that Forrester’s plan “doesn’t direct the relief to where it’s needed most.” [News 12 NJ Forum, 5/2/05; AP, 4/18/05; Star-Ledger, 6/3/05, 9/16/05]
* Forrester’s Proposal Would Give Biggest Break To 100,000 Residents Who Earn More Than $200,000 A Year. Forrester’s proposal to require the state to pay 30 percent of the property taxes on each primary residence would help 100,000 residents who earn more than $200,000 per year. [OLS Memo, 4/6/05; Trenton Times, 7/21/05]
o Forrester Proposal Would Give Over Half A Billion To Wealthiest Five Percent. According to Forrester’s own budget assumptions, over four years, Forrester’s plan would give $569 million to the wealthiest five percent of homeowners. [Proprietary calculations (using OLS data and Forrester’s projected property tax growth rate of 3%)]
RHETORIC: “The bipartisan office of legislative services has pegged the cost of this program when it is fully phased in at 3.2 billion dollars.”
REALITY: Forrester Can’t Get The Cost Of His So-Called Plan Straight – How Can We Expect Him To Fund It?
* Forrester’s Cost Estimates Have Been All Over The Map – He Now Says $6.4 Billion. In August 2005, Forrester’s said his property tax plan would cost $6.4 billion. Forrester’s previous cost estimates varied: $2.7 billion (June 1), $3 billion (June 10), $6 billion (June 11), $5.8 billion (July 6), and $6.3 billion (July 13). [Asbury Park Press, 8/30/05; Forrester Press Conference, 6/1/05; AP, 6/10/05; Star-Ledger, 6/11/05; AP, 7/6/05; Forrester Release, 7/13/05]
* Forrester Has Not Said Where He Would Get The Billions To Pay For His Plan. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, “Republican Douglas Forrester, a wealthy businessman, promises a 30 percent property-tax cut in three years, using state money to make up the difference. He has not specified where he would get the $2.7 billion to enact his plan, other than that he would find wasted money in the state budget.” In September 2005, the Star-Ledger’s Tom Moran wrote that Forrester “is proposing the largest new spending program of the year. But don’t count on that cash just yet. Forrester hasn’t said how he’d pay for this program.” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/9/05; Star-Ledger, 9/16/05]
RHETORIC: “I haven’t changed my position whatsoever, including layoffs in a number of reducing employees is certainly a part of that, but the principle tool is attrition. I never said at any time that I would lay off 6,000 employees.”
REALITY: Forrester Did In Fact Say He Would Lay Off Thousands Of State Employees To Pay For His Unfair Tax Plan.
* April 2005: Forrester Said He Would Lay Off About 6,000 State Workers To Help Pay For His Tax Plan. In April 2005, Forrester proposed laying off 6,000 state workers to help pay for his property tax plan. According to the Trenton Times, “Forrester yesterday said he would lay off about 6,000 state workers to help pay for his property tax relief plan.” Forrester said, “We need $700 million the first year and $400 million of that will come from payroll reductions immediately[.]” The Trenton Times reported that Forrester “backtracked” from the proposal the next day. [Trenton Times, 4/22/05, 4/23/05]
* July 2005: Forrester Reiterated His Proposal To Eliminate 5,700 Jobs. In July, Forrester disputed reports that he had said he would eliminate 6,000 state workers, saying the number was 5,700. According to the Trenton Times, “Forrester said he planned to reduce the state workforce, citing 5,700 as a figure, but he said that could be accomplished through attrition and cutting political appointees.” [Trenton Times, 7/23/05]
If You Like George Bush, You’ll Love Doug Forrester
RHETORIC: “I think it is very clear that stem cell research needs to continue in the most rigorous possible way, and the medical community is I think very clear about what direction that is now, using adult stem cells and the variations.”
REALITY: Forrester Said He, Like Bush, Opposed Public Funding For Stem Cell Research.
* 2005: Forrester Said He Agreed With Bush’s Decision To Block Funding For New Embryonic Stem Cell Research. In 2005, Forrester said he agreed with Bush’s decision to support embryonic stem cell research only using existing stem cell lines. Said Forrester: “I think that the President’s handling of this issue is in the right, to the extent that embryonic stem cell research is available with the lines that are set aside, that is acceptable to me.” [NJ Pro-Life Coalition Dinner, 5/2/05]
* 2005: Forrester Voiced Opposition To Codey’s Proposal To Invest In Stem Cell Research. In a May 2005 GOP debate, Forrester voiced opposition to Gov. Codey’s stem cell research proposal, under which New Jersey would provide funding for stem-cell research. “What we should keep clear in New Jersey is that this is not for state funding, particularly now,” Forrester said. [ABC Debate, Broadcast 5/15/05]
Forrester Can’t Change The System – He Is The System
RHETORIC: “The governor is involved with all kinds of decisions of contracts … [.] We have to change New Jersey. We’ve got to get rid of conflicts in New Jersey.”
REALITY: Forrester Has Made A Living Through The Very No-Bid Contracts And Pay-To-Play He Rails Against.
* Forrester Said That Benecard’s Business Came Predominantly Through No-Bid Contracts – Including 114 In New Jersey. In July 2005, Forrester admitted that 80 percent of Benecard’s business came through public contracts that are no-bid. As of August 2005, Benecard had contracts with 114 local governments in New Jersey. [Philadelphia Inquirer, 7/29/05] The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Forrester’s personal fortunate was amassed “predominantly” through contracts with more than 100 New Jersey governments and other public clients. [Philadelphia Inquirer, 7/29/05; Star-Ledger, 8/2/05] [Philadelphia Inquirer, 7/29/05]
* 2003-04: Forrester Gave At Least $100,000 In Towns And Counties Where Benecard Then Won No-Bid Contracts Or Renewals. Forrester contributed at least $100,000 to candidates and committees in towns and counties where Benecard has no-bid contracts. In Burlington County, where Benecard won two contracts with a county school district, Forrester contributed $45,000 – including $10,000 before Benecard won its first contract there. In Bergen County, Forrester contributed $59,700 to the county GOP committee and individual county office candidates, and then Benecard won two renewal contracts with the county. In Dover Township, Forrester contributed $5,000 to township committee candidates, and then Benecard won a renewal contract with the Toms River Regional School district, located in Dover. [ELEC; Benecard Contract with Burlington County Special Services School District, 7/1/04; Letter from Broker for Burlington County Special Services School District to Benecard, 4/30/04; Letter from Benecard to Broker for Burlington County Special Services School District, 5/18/05; Bergen Record, 11/6/03, 12/12/03, 11/3/04; Bergen County Board of Freeholders Resolution, 4/21/04; Benecard Contract with County of Bergen Sheriff’s Department, 2003; Dover First Team, 29-Day Report (Form R-1), Election Date 11/4/03; Asbury Park Press, 6/16/03, 6/8/04; Dover Township Website, as of 7/05 (http://www.townshipofdover.com/…); Benecard Contract with Toms River Regional Schools, 7/1/04; Asbury Park Press, 3/7/04; Benecard Contracts with Toms River Regional Schools, 7/1/03 & 7/1/04; Benecard Invoices to Toms River BOE, 2003-05]
RHETORIC: “There are no consumer complaints at all. They were thrown out because they were generated in the political environment by Senator Corzine’s political allies[.]”
REALITY: The Judge Allowed The Bulk Of The Plaintiffs’ Claims To Proceed.
* May 2004: Court Denied Benecard’s Motion, Allowing Bulk Of Plaintiffs’ Charges To Proceed. The plaintiffs’ December 2003 complaint stated that Benecard and partner companies “intended to, and in fact did deceive Plaintiffs” in part by “secretly and subversively diverting and converting rebates, discounts, financial incentives and other `soft dollars’ for its own use and benefit” and by “obtaining and retaining monies in exchange for favoring specific drugs[.]” In May 2004, the court denied the motion filed by the defendants – NPA/Express Scripts, and Benecard – for summary judgment, to have the charges thrown out. [NJ Superior Court L-5908-02, Fourth Amended Complaint, Filed 12/23/03 & Proceeding, 5/28/04]
* 2005: Benecard Sought – Unsuccessfully – To Settle Lawsuits In Which NJ Clients Accused Benecard Of Fraud. In August 2005, the Star Ledger reported that Forrester had “agreed to settle a lawsuit by two New Jersey municipalities that accused it of fraud[.]” The Star Ledger later reported that the settlement negotiations fell though. The plaintiffs’ December 2003 complaint stated that Benecard and partner companies “intended to, and in fact did deceive Plaintiffs” in part by “secretly and subversively diverting and converting rebates, discounts, financial incentives and other `soft dollars’ for its own use and benefit” and by “obtaining and retaining monies in exchange for favoring specific drugs[.]” [Star Ledger, 8/17/05; NJ Superior Court L-5908-02, Fourth Amended Complaint, Filed 12/23/03 (Pages 41-42); Star Ledger, 9/9/05]
* Benecard Used At Least Eight Different Attorneys In Its Defense – Including At Six Court Proceedings Between 2003 And 2005. Between November 2002 and June 2005, on filings and at proceedings, Benecard was represented by at least eight different lawyers. Between February 2003 and March 2005, Benecard sent six different attorneys to six proceedings before the court. [NJ Superior Court L-5908-02, Case File & Proceeding Transcripts, as of 4/1/05]
Corzine Is The Candidate With The Record Of Fighting For NJ
RHETORIC: “I mean he gave a million dollars to perhaps the principal political boss, George Norcross, and we find that is the individual who says on tape now the McGreeveys and will be not because they like me but they have to be[.]”
REALITY #1: Forrester’s Endless Attempts To Use The Tapes As Evidence Against Corzine Are Empty – Corzine’s Name Is Mentioned Twice In Passing.
* AC Press Called Wilson’s Reference To “Corzine-Norcross Tapes” The “Stretch Of The Week.” The Press of Atlantic City called NJ GOP Chair Tom Wilson’s use of the phrase “Corzine-Norcross Tapes” as the “Stretch Of The Week.” Reported the Press: “Norcross refers to Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jon Corzine twice on the tapes, noting he had pancakes with the U.S. senator and predicting he will ultimately have the senator’s support. Corzine never utters a syllable.” [AC Press, 7/27/05]
REALITY #2: Forrester Is The Only Candidate Who Has Done Business With George Norcross.
* Forrester’s Company Has Done Business With A Norcross Company. In August 2005, The New York Times reported that Forrester’s company, Benecard Services, “does business with a company controlled by George E. Norcross III[.]” [New York Times, 8/18/05]
RHETORIC: “I believe this [Oyster Creek] is an example of Senator Corzine having both sides of the issue.”
REALITY: Corzine First Called For Public Hearings About Oyster Creek’s Safety In March 2002. Forrester, By Contrast, Said Nothing About Oyster Creek In His 2002 Senate Campaign.
* 2002: Corzine Called For Public Hearing On Oyster Creek Storage Of Nuclear Waste. In a letter to the NRC, Corzine requested that the agency hold a public hearing concerning the safety and adequacy regarding the plant’s plans to store nuclear waste at the Oyster Creek nuclear plant. [Corzine Press Release, 3/11/02; Letter to NRC, 3/11/02]
* 2004: Corzine Called For Public Involvement In Oyster Creek Relicensing. Corzine wrote the NRC requesting that the relicensing process be open to public participation and comment. Corzine included with the letter concerns that some of his constituents have expressed to him regarding plant ageing, security and emergency planning. [Letter to NRC, 1/30/04; Response from NRC, 3/4/04]
* 2004: Corzine Lobbied For Oyster Creek To Host $8 Million Pilot Security Program. [Letter from Corzine and Lautenberg to Appropriators, 5/18/04]
* 2005: Corzine Bill Would Require Oyster To Meet Tougher Standards. Corzine’s legislation, similar to a House bill authored by Representative Jim Saxton (R-3rd Dist.), would require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to withhold relicensing of the Oyster Creek Station until the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) provides an independent assessment of safety performance. That assessment would examine health risks, vulnerabilities to terrorist attack, evacuation plans, the effect of population increases, the plant’s ability to store nuclear waste, safety and security records, and the impact of a nuclear accident. [Corzine Press Release, 7/12/05; Asbury Park Press, 7/13/05]
