A Message From Our Executive Director, Michael P. Riccards

Dear Friends:

For over two months the Hall Institute website has been down as we repaired it for use.  It had been hacked into by a person or persons probably from the People’s Republic of China who decided to contaminate it with a computer virus that would have infected our users.  We are pleased to say that the problem has been rectified.

I am not sure why such a step was taken; perhaps it is just for the sake of doing it.  But we are back again, are pleased by your support, and remain committed to the free exercise of ideas at the Hall Institute.

Student Loans: Use Public Funds for College Students, Not for Banks and Private Lenders

By Linda Stamato
A bill introduced in Congress on Wednesday would end the bank-based guaranteed-student-loan program (and provide additional money for Pell Grants, expand the Perkins Loan program from the current $1-billion to $6-billion a year, while overhauling its structure). Introduced by the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives education committee, George Miller (D-Calif), it mirrors President Obama’s budget proposals by shifting all student loans into the government-run direct-loan program.

Under the bill, banks and other lenders would no longer “originate” federal student loans, but they could compete for the right to service them. And guarantors could compete for grants to provide borrower services like financial-literacy education, default prevention, and borrower retention.

“Many able students are excluded from college for no other reason than their ability to pay” (Center for the Study of Higher Education, Penn State University: 2009)

The House education committee is expected to take up the bill next week.

It’s hard to keep a straight face as private lenders vie to remain in the guaranteed student loan business. With virtually NO private capital available for financing student loans, what banks do is funnel public money to students and keep not a little for their “efforts.” Who thinks it’s a good idea to pay banks to give students public money? The usual suspects: those who benefit directly, their lobbyists, and members of Congress whose “interests” are affected.

Rutgers University Commencement in MayMore than 10,000 Rutgers students depend on the Pell Grant program for tuition aid, and Rutgers ranks among the top 10 public universities in the nation in the number of Pell recipients enrolled

The rhetoric is beyond the pale. Listen to Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) for example:

“This effort by the Obama administration for a Washington takeover of student loans is just one more example of a long line of Washington takeovers of banks, insurance companies, car companies, health care, that I totally object to.”

What the Obama administration proposed, though, goes like this: Scrap the existing program–so that all federal loans are made directly by the government–in order to save billions of dollars in subsidy payments to lenders, making it possible, then, among other things, to redirect money to pay for expanded grant aid to needy students. According to the Congressional Budget Office, replacing subsidized loans made by private banks with direct government lending would save between $87 and $94 billion over the next decade. (See my earlier blog on the subject: “Finance Federally Guaranteed Student Loans Without a Middleman” for more information).

While making direct loans may seem like a ‘no-brainer,’ it isn’t; too many vested interests are at stake.

Take a look at the lengths to which Citibank is going, for example, to retain the student loan business it has. The bank is spending some portion of its federal bailout funds to lobby against loan reform. And, why not? If the alternative to the Obama plan, to which it subscribes, were to gain approval, Citibank and its colleagues in the private-lending-of-public-money business stand to pocket $15 billion (yes, billion, at the expense of needy students).

The bank emailed borrowers who took out student loans with Citibank encouraging them to write to Congress opposing the administration’s proposal, using such words as “choice” and “service,” but, really, where is the value added in this arrangement of being a middleman between the provider of funds and the receiver of the aid? What choice? What service?

The argument that the Obama plan (and, now, the Wilson bill) will deny students choice is just plain hogwash. The call for “competition” is a joke. The terms on these loans are identical regardless of vendor, so there really is no choice to make.

And, by the way, take note Senator Alexander, under the bill students can still borrow from banks, but their loans would not be guaranteed by the government (let’s hear it for the private sector!) and the interest rate would not be set by the government. (the choice is up to the banks) . More like the competition the private lending crowd should be pleased to see, no? Well, not really. The banks prefer that the public bear the burden and pay the banks for the privilege.

Representative Miller finally got fed up with the game (and introduced his own bill):

“It’s unfortunate that a small number of lenders are using legislative gimmicks to mask the fact that their proposal would divert $15 billion into their own pockets at the expense of students…..This cynical stunt is another reminder that our federal student loan programs need major reforms to ensure they operate in the best interests of students and taxpayers.”

What the banks are seeking is a risk-free business in which they essentially use taxpayer dollars to “originate” loans, with repayment guaranteed, and then resell those loans to the Treasury–this is a system in which they get all the rewards and we, the public, take the risk. What does it take to “originate” a loan? Well, it’s a process the federal government already does, according to the deputy under secretary of education, Robert Shireman, “in a much more efficient way.”

With the government directly or indirectly financing virtually all federal student loans because of the current financial crisis, is there any reason to continue a program that was intended to inject private capital into the education lending system? Hello?

Come on. Let’s cut through all the rhetoric and do what’s right and sensible. Let’s reform the student aid program once and for all and put our dollars where the needs are–with the students. Banks can (and will) take care of themselves.

Reforming the student loan program is a critical element of President Obama’s strategy to make college more affordable, one of three domestic priorities. While there may be legitimate arguments about his other two–heath care and energy–there should be none about this one.

Should Political Campaigns Take an All-Star Break?

By Richard A. Lee

Major League Baseball took its annual mid-season break for the All-Star Game this week, but there was no break in the action in New Jersey’s 2009 campaign for governor.

Two days after throwing out the first pitch at the All-Star Game in St. Louis, President Barack Obama headed to New Jersey to campaign with Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine.  And earlier in the week, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele visited the Garden State for an appearance with GOP challenger Chris Christie.

In political campaigns, the stakes are high and time is always short. A short hiatus, such as baseball’s three-day All-Star break, appears – at least at first glance – to be unwise and impractical. But think about it for a moment.

Baseball takes a three-day break while teams are competing for first place, players are chasing records, and milestones are approaching – and it does not diminish interest in the sport or the intensity of competition.  In fact, teams, players and fans can be re-energized by the break, making for a more exciting second half of the season.

The All-Star break does something else for baseball that would benefit politicians: It humanizes the players. True, they are superstars with tremendous physical skills, but we also see how much they are just like us. Like fans, they take pictures and videos of the players and festivities. We see them with their wives and children (and in some cases, parents) at events such as the All-Star Red Carpet Parade and the Home Run Derby. And when they meet the President of the United States, their faces exude the same sense of excitement, nervousness and honor that any American would display.

Politicians often try to paint a similar picture. They strive to humanize themselves because they know there is a value to making voters feel that they are just like them. As Roland Barthes wrote in an essay about photos used by politicians: “A photograph is a mirror, what we are asked to read is the familiar, the known; it offers to the voter his own likeness, but clarified, exalted, superbly elevated into a type. This glorification is in fact the very definition of the photogenic: the voter is at once expressed and heroized, he is invited to elect himself.”

Another significant occurrence that takes place during the All-Star break is the opportunity to see that athletes who are fierce competitors throughout the season can actually appreciate and respect each other’s talents, and work together as a team toward a common goal. Political campaigns, by their nature, rarely allow for such dynamics. Instead, opponents are attacked and demonized in an effort to obtain victory at the polls.

Despite any benefits that may accrue if politicians followed baseball’s lead and took a short mid-campaign break, chances are slim that it will ever happen. But we do have some history that lends additional support to the concept.

After the 9/ll terrorist attacks, politicians – including New Jersey’s gubernatorial candidates – put their campaigns on hold. When they did resume, the tenor was more civil and the debate was more substantive than personal. Granted this was reflective of the mood of the nation at that time, but the different view we saw of the candidates was much like the different view we see of baseball players during the All-Star break.

We experienced a similar moment last year after popular TV journalist Tim Russert passed away during the presidential campaign.  For one day during the hotly contested race, Barack Obama and John McCain were not rivals competing for the highest office in the nation. Instead, at Russert’s funeral at Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Washington, D.C., they sat side by side, two of many people who had come to pay their last respects to a man they all admired.

Will we see any similar camaraderie in New Jersey during this year’s governor’s race? Probably not, but that doesn’t mean we should refrain from taking inspiration from baseball. As the president said before Tuesday’s All-Star game, “As a sport, baseball has always embodied the values that make America great – hard work, leadership, passion and teamwork.”

Indeed, these are traits that can lead to success on the ball field, on the campaign trail and in virtually all aspects of our lives.

# # #

New Jersey Public Pensions – A Comparative Perspective

By Michael P. Riccards

One of the major foundations in this country, operated by the Pew group, is a center devoted to the states which examines the challenges that impact pensions in the fifty states. The comparative study of public pensions offers conclusions that we in New Jersey would do well to heed.

The study completed in 2008 shows serious problems in the funding mechanisms of most jurisdictions, but generally the states in 2008 had enough assets to cover about 87 percent of their liabilities.  In the last several years, the worth of many of these public pensions (as well as private pensions) has dropped appreciably.  In the case of New Jersey the pension system had once achieved a balance of $86 billion. Now assets are closer to $56 billion.

According to Pew, the total bill coming due in the state is $109.6 billion.  This does not include calculations for other benefits, most notably medical costs, costs that are rapidly rising from the early Pew calculation of $21.6 billion.  Medical costs are complicated by the role that the Federal government may soon play, but we do know that New Jersey has put $0 aside to cover the other benefits costs as of now.

Nationally, the total US bill for pensions and benefits in the public sector is $2.73 trillion over the next several decades.  New Jersey has consistently fallen short with its contributions.  Some states like Georgia and Oklahoma require that any proposed benefit increase be complimented by an actuarial calculation of costs.

One interesting development is the offering of hybrid plans in at least four states that combine elements of defined benefits and defined contribution plans.   The first plan assures the retiree a specific dollar amount. The second, the idea of a defined contribution, is one in which the employer is committed to put into the account a specified amount of money.  Some states like Oregon blend both mythologies.  By 2000, about half of the states’ pensions systems were fully funded, largely due to the strong performance of the stock market.  But the movement to equities and the great recession of the last two years has resulted in huge declines in the worth of state portofolios.

In New Jersey, the state’s legislative representatives proposed replacing the traditional defined budget plan for newly elected and some appointed officials, and prohibited professional service contractors from being part of the state’s pension plan as of January 2008.  The state also approved a 10 percent increase in contributions for some public employees.  Critics have argued however that state changes have not gone into effect in  ways that had been anticipated.

Across the nation, state pension problems have been aggravated by the costs of other post retirement benefits—most especially health care.  With the current national debate over health care and the acceleration costs of medical technology and testing, the issue of guaranteeing medical care for all retirees in the public sector has become extremely complicated.

The Pew study concludes that “New Jersey has done an abysmal job of keeping up with annual funding requests for its pension system.”  In addition, the state is facing a bill of over $21 billion for other benefits, and the costs are growing rapidly.  No funds have been set aside for the latter commitment.  Officials in New Jersey have too often discounted concerns about the pension fund, insisting that the least bit of criticism is partisan inspired.  It is impossible to make that accusation against Pew.  Like it or not, New Jersey is becoming the General Motors of the states: bloated, slow moving, unconcerned about quality, union driven, and unreceptive to change, reform, and readjustment.

Organs for transplant: Improving the supply by shifting the policy (from opting in to opting out)

By Linda Stamato

Most people support organ donation and organ transplants but, as it turns out, they don’t donate. Given the former, how do we encourage the latter? How does (or can) society encourage positive behavior? Should government attempt to affect certain decision-making behaviors? Whether we’re talking about limiting climate change, for example, or promoting healthy living, or donating organs, one crucial question is whether (and, if yes, when) to use the techniques and tools of science, particularly cognitive science, to try to steer people toward better choices.

In “Why Isn’t the Brain Green?” (The New York Times Magazine) Jon Gertner explores this question. He is struck by the fact that Americans fail to place concerns about climate change, for example, high on the nation’s list of critical priorities and so individuals fail to make decisions and take actions that reflect that concern. Accordingly, policy experts are turning to the work of cognitive scientists, especially those who work in the area of decision science, to discern ways to encourage behavior changes to protect the environment and limit negative climate change.

An image from an organ donation website

This same research is remarkably useful in consumer psychology and may offer a critical insight into how to increase the availability of organs for transplant. Richard Thaler, a pioneer in the field, and author, with Cass Sunstein, of Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Yale University Press, 2008), conducted research on consumer savings patterns that has direct relevance. Thaler found that many more people saved money in a 401(K) retirement plan if they did not have to take active steps to join the plan. In one study, only 45 percent of a company’s new employees participated in the 401(K) plan when doing so required them to take some kind of action, like filling out a form. However, 86 percent participated when doing so was the default option.

And, Max Bazerman, along with colleagues at the Harvard Business School, investigated how people make unwise tradeoffs. One finding is particularly relevant. It’s this: Most people agree that organ donation makes sense, but, as noted above, they don’t donate. Most people accept the default position, the status quo. It is not that people are deciding not to donate; rather, they are not thinking about it. In countries other than the United States, the default is that unless you specify that you do not want to donate your organs, you become a viable donor at death. In the U.S., unless you actively decide to donate, you are not likely to be a donor. Thus, the default approach that society imposes dramatically affects donor rates. As a result of the U.S system, according to Bazerman, 6,000 people die each year who might not have given a change in the default.

Organs in the body that can be donated and transplanted

There really is a difference in how a choice is presented.

In “Expand pool of blood donors” the The Star Ledger editorial on 15th of February, 2009, observed:

“When it comes to our blood, we’re selfish. Only 2.5 percent of eligible New Jerseyans donate blood, compared to the national average of 5 percent.
But, oh, when we need blood, when our life hangs in the balance, we want it.”

The same point can be made about all organ and tissue donations. The “Chain of Life” three-part multimedia series by The Star Ledger in June, makes the case urgently and passionately. As does a column that appeared in February, 2009, which featured the lives of the five recipients of the organs of a young man, Dennis Maloosseril, who was killed by a gunman inside a church in Clifton. His parents donated his heart, lungs, liver, kidneys and pancreas to donors. These stories, compelling as they are, help to heighten awareness of the need for organs for transplant. As do efforts, say, by employers to promote organ donation by their employees, such as Rutgers University, my employer, does. And, too, changes in the law such as the New Jersey Hero Act that was signed into law in October of 2008 that requires residents of New Jersey who are applying for a driver’s license to consider becoming organ donors. This consideration certainly does make people think.

But, as important as new law and education efforts are, organ donations will not keep pace with the need for them. (The New Jersey Organ and Tissue Sharing Network reports an increase in organ donations but, at the same time, thousands of state residents await organs to save their lives.

We have to think about this problem differently.

We could provide incentives such as life-long Medicare coverage or even tax credits or vouchers. Through greater educational efforts, too, we could hope for a surge in altruism. Fundamentally, though, while these efforts might increase the number of organ donations, the problem will remain unsolved because the need is so great.

In “Enlarging the Societal Pie through Wise Legislation: A Psychological Perspective,” Max Bazerman, this time with fellow authors Jonathan Baron and Katherine Shonk, looked into the psychology of decision-making and the impact on policy. They asked this question, “Why are organ-donor programs constrained to the point where thousands of Americans die needlessly each year?” They posed the following hypothetical:

a. If you die in an auto accident, your heart will be used to save another person’s life. In addition, if you are ever in need of a heart transplant, there will be a 90 percent chance that you will get the heart.

b. If you die in an auto accident, you will be buried with your heart in your body. In addition, if you are ever in need of a heart transplant, there will be a 45 percent chance that you will get the heart.

They asked the study participants which of these options they’d prefer. Most people choose “a” as the benefit of the trade-off is quite clear. Yet government policy, yielding to what psychologists term “omissions bias”– which is the “irrational preference for harms of omission over harms of action”–follows an organ donation program that favors “b.”

This is a striking result that clearly supports a change in policy: We need to switch to a ‘default’ system that functions as follows: Unless you specify that you do not want to donate your organs, you become a viable donor at death. By this simple shift in policy, organ donations would rise substantially.
A free collection of articles on transplants can be found at this website.

“All Honor to Jefferson”

The author of American Virtues: Thomas Jefferson on the Character of a Free People and editor of The Essential Jefferson, Jean Yarbrough recently delivered a speech to dedicate a statue of Thomas Jefferson erected recently on the campus of Hillsdale College.

It is one of the wonders of the modern political world that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Unaware that the “Sage of Monticello” had died earlier in the day, the crusty Adams, as he felt his own life slipping away, uttered his last words, “Thomas Jefferson still lives.” And so he does. Today, as we dedicate this marvelous statue of our third President, and place him in the company of George Washington, Winston Churchill, and Margaret Thatcher on Hillsdale’s Liberty Walk, soon to be joined by Abraham Lincoln, it is fitting to reflect on what of Thomas Jefferson still lives. What is it that we honor him for here today? Without question, pride of place must go to Jefferson as the author of the Declaration of Independence. That document established Jefferson as one of America’s great political poets, second only to Abraham Lincoln. And fittingly, it was Lincoln himself who recognized the signal importance of its first two paragraphs when he wrote: “All honor to Jefferson—to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times,” where it continues to stand as “a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.”

Click here to read “All Honor to Jefferson”

Just What Does $340,000 Buy You These Days?

By Richard A. Lee

By raising more than $340,000 for his independent campaign for governor, Chris Daggett has qualified for public matching funds, as well as the right to participate in two official debates this fall.

Just what else will result from having met the $340,000 threshold is not so clear.

Does it give Daggett a realistic opportunity to compete with the two major party candidates? Will his candidacy take votes away from Republican candidate Chris Christie? Can it somehow hurt Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine’s chances for re-election? Or will it simply be a wash with relatively equal numbers of Democratic and Republican voters opting for an independent candidate?

We won’t know the answers to these questions until after Election Day in November, but in the interim, there will be plenty of speculation. For my part, I decided to take a look at three research studies on independent and third-party candidates and see how the findings may – or may not – apply to this year’s race for governor in New Jersey.

There is a progression in the three studies. The first takes a broad look at challenges to our two-party system; the second focuses on minor party candidates in gubernatorial elections, and the third examines the successful campaign of a third-party candidate for governor – Jesse Ventura, who was elected governor of Minnesota in 1998. Here is what I found:

Challenges to the American Two-Party System: Evidence from the 1968, 1980, 1992, and 1996 Presidential Elections by Paul R. Abramson, John H. Aldrich, Philip Paolino and David W Rohde (2000)

In this study, the authors found that independent candidates benefit when voters’ connections with the major political parties are weakened. Moreover, dissatisfaction with the major party candidates – as opposed to their parties – played a greater role in voters’ support for independent candidates. According to the study: “The people supporting an independent candidate are not those harboring a long-developed disaffection from the major parties, but rather are those who can be moved to express anti-party views because, and probably only because, they are disaffected from the parties’ candidates in a particular election.”

In New Jersey’s race for governor, both major party candidates have been blaming the opposing party for today’s dire economic conditions. At the same time, there have been many direct attacks upon both Corzine and Christie. Based on this study’s findings, independent candidates such as Daggett would benefit more if the major party candidates target each other, rather than their political parties.

Picking Their Spots: Minor Party Candidates in Gubernatorial Elections by Steve B. Lem and Conor M. Dowling (2006)

Lem and Dowling examined gubernatorial elections in all states between 1982 and 2000. Their research was designed to determine why minor party candidates run for office when the chances of winning are slim. The authors also suggested that independents can benefit from “ideological gaps” left by the major party candidates. Such gaps create opportunities “to offer something different than the Democrats and Republicans,” they wrote.

Providing voters an alternative to the major party candidates has been a big part of Daggett’s message. By exploiting gaps in the Corzine and Christie campaigns, he and the other non-major candidates in the race could increase their appeal to New Jersey voters if this year’s election is consistent with Lem and Dowling’s findings.

The Origins and Impact of Votes for Third-Party Candidates: A Case Study of the 1998 Minnesota Gubernatorial Election by Dean Lacy and Quin Monson (2002)

Of the three studies, this is the most interesting in that it explores the circumstances surrounding an independent gubernatorial candidate who won an election. However, many of the factors accounting for Jesse Ventura’s 1998 victory in Minnesota were unique to that campaign.

While Ventura entered the race with high-name recognition due to his career as a professional wrestler, he also benefited from a well-timed newspaper report, a rare state election law, creative use of public funds, the absence of an incumbent on the ticket, and a tight campaign between the two major party candidates, both of whom had emerged from hotly contested and potentially divisive primary elections.

According to Lacy and Monson, as late as mid-October, polls were showing Ventura with just about 10 percent of the vote. But his numbers rose steadily in the latter part of October – so much in fact that on the Sunday before Election Day, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that he had a realistic chance of winning the election. The report had a profound and positive impact for Ventura.

“Even though he never officially led in the pre-election polls, the signal communicated to voters through the press was that Ventura was in a position possibly to win,” the authors explained. “In the close three-way race this significantly reduced the incentives to vote strategically.  Third party candidates face a perpetual problem of losing their supporters to strategic voting: third party voters often defect to their second most preferred candidate in order to avoid electing their least preferred candidate. With his momentum in the polls and eventual victory, Ventura overcame the usual trend.”

The timing of the newspaper report was extremely beneficial for Ventura because Minnesota is one of the few states that allow citizens to register to vote on Election Day, making it possible for those who decided to support him – even at that late stage of the campaign – to cast ballots. Ventura’s rising poll numbers also made it likely he would qualify for public funds – but not until after Election Day. So he took out a loan, used it for late advertising and paid it back after the election.

The scenario in New Jersey this fall will be much different, but one element of Lacy and Monson’s findings may have implications in the Garden State, where Democrats hope to nationalize the election and benefit from President Obama’s popularity, while Republicans contend that state issues will determine the outcome. The study found that voter attitudes on the condition of the nation had no effect on Ventura’s support. Conversely, the condition of the state played a more significant role.

“Ventura’s electoral success was due to dissatisfaction with Minnesota government rather than a reaction to national conditions,” Lacy and Monson wrote. “People who believe Minnesota is on the right track are more likely to vote for the major-party candidates than for Ventura.”

* * *

These research studies provide a good starting point for discussion of New Jersey’s race for governor. At the end of the day, however, every election is unique with its own set of candidates and circumstances. How Chris Daggett and the other candidates fare in New Jersey in 2009 will be determined by the distinctive factors in place in our state this year.

# # #

Two Cheers for Henry Hudson

By Marc Mappen

The 400th anniversary of Henry Hudson’s discovery of the Hudson River is coming up this fall, and there will be celebratory events in New Jersey and New York, states which share the lower part of the River as a boundary.  But the 400th anniversary hoopla will not be anywhere near as extravagant and extensive as it was at the 300th anniversary in 1909.  Back then, two weeks of activity were planned for New York state, including religious services, parades, school essay contests, poetry, dedication of parks and memorials, fireworks, and a “monster naval parade” of ships up and down the river.

Why has the enthusiasm faded?  Probably because the early European explorers of the New World are held in less regard these days than they once were. Americans have become more sensitive to the fate that befell the Native Americans after the European discovery.  Matter of fact the whole concept of “discovery” has fallen into disrepute, since the Americas were already populated by millions of Indians long before the Europeans arrived. To understand the Indian perspective on this, how would you feel if Martians invaders landed in a flying saucer, wiped out a major proportion of the human population by spreading disease, confiscated the land we live on, and proclaimed they had discovered planet Earth.

It is still possible to admire the boldness of Henry Hudson.  He was an experienced English sea captain who was hired by the Dutch East India Company to search for a seagoing shortcut to China.  Hudson’s ship was the Halve Maen (Dutch for Half Moon), and was manned by a crew of Dutch and English sailors.  The ship left Holland on April 4, 1609, and proceeded to the far northern reaches of Russia to search for a northeast passage.  But Hudson could find no such route, so he changed course and sailed to North America to see what he could discover. Sailing along the east coast, Captain Hudson and his crew briefly explored Delaware Bay, and then journeyed north up Jersey shore.  One of Hudson’s officers was Robert Juet, who kept a journal in which described the territory that would one day become New Jersey as “a very good Land to fall with and a pleasant Land to see.”  For those words, one 20th century historian credited Juet with being the first Jersey shore publicist.  The Half Moon then entered the vast New Jersey – New York harbor, where on September 3 the captain and his crew found a broad river heading north into the interior, which Hudson thought might lead to the long sought northwest passage.

The trip up and down this mighty river took a month.  Once again Hudson did not a find a passage to China because there was none to find.  The Half Moon did encounter Indians, with whom the crew offered beads, knives, and other kinds of cheap goods in exchange for tobacco, beans, corn, and the furry pelts of beavers and otters. But all was not well. Said Juet about the Indians:  “The people comming aboord, shewed us great friendship, but we could not trust them.”  One of Hudson’s crewmen exploring at a distance from the ship in a small boat was killed by an Indian arrow in the neck and buried on Sandy Hook.  Days later Indians in canoes and on shore fired arrows at the ship while the crew members shot back with muskets and the ship’s small cannon; about ten Indians were killed in this skirmish.  It was an early chapter in a saga of hostility that was to last for many generations to come.

When Hudson returned to Europe after more than half a year at sea, his Dutch masters were disappointed he had not discovered any shortcut to China.  But they saw an opportunity to establish a money making colony in North America fueled by the lucrative fur trade that provided hats and clothing for Europe.  Fifty-five years after Hudson’s voyage, the New Netherland colony was conquered by Great Britain and divided up into colonies, which as a result of the American Revolution of 1776 became states in the New American nation.  One of those states was our own New Jersey.

Hudson did not live to see any of this.  The year after exploring the river that bears his name he was once again sailing the ocean looking for a northwest passage, this time traveling up toward the Arctic fringe of North America.  Hudson, for all his admirable qualities had one fatal flaw — he was really mean to his crew.  This is a dangerous characteristic if you and your crew are on a small ship threading your way though icy waters with not enough food, thousands of miles away from European civilization.  They crew mutinied, seized their captain, and put him in a boat with those crew members who remained loyal to him.  Hudson was never heard from again and presumably perished of starvation or freezing.

It was a sad fate for the great seafarer Hudson, whose name is commemorated not only by the river he explored, but by a New Jersey county as well.

Dr. Marc Mappen is the executive director of the New Jersey Historical Commission and co-editor of the Encyclopedia of New Jersey.

Political Allies Don’t Always Sing in Tune

By Richard A. Lee

In a symphony orchestra, each musician has a specific role, but as a group they work in unison toward a common goal – to make beautiful music. If just one member of the orchestra decides to do things differently, the results can be disastrous.

The dynamics of symphony orchestras come to mind because of two recent events in which political allies appear to be singing from different song sheets.

The first of these took place on Thursday at a Congressional hearing on deferred prosecution agreements. For New Jersey Democrats, the session conducted by the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law provided an opportunity to score political points because the star witness was GOP gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie and the agenda included questions regarding deferred prosecution agreements that took place while he was the state’s U.S. Attorney.

Not surprisingly, Republicans charged that the hearing was politically motivated (Christie labeled the session a political circus after he finished his testimony). Meanwhile, Democrats argued that the hearing was needed to determine whether deferred prosecution agreements require additional oversight, as proposed in legislation co-authored by two Democratic New Jersey congressmen. That’s not a bad argument – unless someone from your own party starts singing from a different song sheet.

And that’s more or less what happened when a member of the Obama Administration testified that deferred prosecution agreements – in their current form — have been an effective part of the federal government’s efforts to combat corporate fraud. He also warned that the proposed legislation would weaken those efforts. “The bill would impede the government’s enforcement efforts against corporate and financial frauds by limiting our discretion in appropriately prosecuting cases,” Gary Grindler, a deputy assistant attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice, told the committee.

Grindler is a seasoned attorney who supervises the Justice Department’s enforcement of anti-fraud laws, so his comments should not be taken lightly.  But in the context of New Jersey’s gubernatorial election, his testimony was ill-timed for Democrats, and Christie seized the opportunity quickly. “I agree with the Obama Administration, who think that what we did was completely appropriate,” he told politickernj after the hearing. “You heard the official from the Obama Justice Department say that they wouldn’t change a thing about what we did.”

Could the situation have been avoided?  In this case, if the White House knew that Grindler’s testimony was going to undercut an effort to tarnish Christie’s reputation, the administration could have warned New Jersey Democrats that the hearing might not be such a good idea and urged that they cancel or postpone the session. Or perhaps the White House could have had Grindler take a little more time to review the proposed legislation, so that he could tell the committee the Justice Department was still studying the proposal, instead of trashing it.

Closer to home, there was another disconnect – this one involving the election of a lieutenant governor for the first time in New Jersey history. According to the state Constitution, gubernatorial candidates have 30 days from the date they are nominated to select a lieutenant governor running mate. This generally was interpreted – by the candidates, the media and political experts – as 30 days from New Jersey’s June 2 primary election, which would have placed the deadline at July 2.  But it turns out that candidates do not officially become nominees until the primary election results are certified by the Secretary of State, and Nina Mitchell Wells, who serves as Secretary of State in Governor Corzine’s cabinet, did not certify the results until June 26, giving candidates until July 27 to select their running mates.

In the grand scheme of things, the extra 25 days may matter little in November, but it is puzzling that Wells did not clarify the deadline sooner.  As far back as April, news reports were indicating that the deadline was July 2, and it appears that both major candidates were operating under the same timetable.  Why not set the record straight sooner?

What these two episodes illustrate is just how difficult it is for a chief executive to keep tabs on every agency and every employee in his or her administration – something that President Obama discovered quickly when a passenger jet and an F-16 fighter plane were authorized — apparently without his knowledge — to fly over New York City for an unannounced photo op that rekindled fears of the 9/11 attacks.

Political campaigns face similar challenges. They must keep large numbers of people on message when the stakes are high, time is short, and egos are gigantic. No campaign is perfect. For all of its historic accomplishments, the Obama campaign still made its share of mistakes.

Successful campaigns manage to move past their missteps so they become mere blips on the radar screen. For unsuccessful campaigns, missteps can become emblematic of flawed and failed efforts — as in images of Michael Dukakis at the controls of a tank in his 1988 bid for the presidency. Here in New Jersey, it is unlikely that any of this year’s candidates for governor will run perfect campaigns immune from mistakes. But come November, how they handled those missteps could be what makes the difference between winning and losing.

# # #

Sin and Conservatism

By Michael P. Riccards

We all know the vocalizations about the “culture wars,”a phrase that goes back to Bismarck in Germany and more recently to conservative pundit Patrick Buchanan. The implications today are that there are two blocks of people with very different views of the importance of the so called American social issues. There are the coastal liberals who support gays, abortion, feminism, pornography, and loose living. Posed against them are the heartland and southern conservatives who prize Christian fundamentalism, family values, and restricted government welfare.

The recent revelations in the family lives of so many conservative clergymen and conservative, usually Republican, politicians has added to the complexity of belief. This situation underscores the overall power of hypocrisy, especially when sexual behavior is involved. The usual answer is to deplore the pleasures of the flesh, and note the ever hovering presence of sin and the Great Deceiver.

But Benjamin Edelman of Harvard Business School and New York Times’ Charles M. Blow have given us a very different view of the culture battle field. Most recent studies show that divorce rates are highest in states that John McCain carried: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Idaho, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, and West Virginia. Only Nevada which went for Obama makes the top group. Liberal New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts are actually at the bottom of the list. So those who so vigorously support family values have real problems with long lasting monogamous relationships.

The federal government has been committed to the advocacy of chastity among teenagers, rather than sex education or the easy availability of condoms to the young. If only we would discourage premarital sex, then the strong urges of the young could be tamed, especially with the right curriculum. People committed to chastity and abstaining are showing their adherence to family values once again. The problem is that those urges and the lack of preventive measures mean very high teenage birthrates especially in conservative Republican states:

Mississippi, Texas, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia and Louisiana, Alabama, Oklahoma, Tennessee, South Carolina. Only New Mexico and Nevada which were carried by Obama are in the high teenage pregnancy list. Liberal New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are among the lowest rates.

The Edelman study also explores which states have the highest subscriptions to on line pornographic sites. Once again the conservative, Republican states come out far ahead: Utah, Alaska, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Arkansas, North Dakota, Louisiana, West Virginal, Maine.  The states of Hawaii and Florida, both Obama territories, are also in that list. Once again liberal New Jersey is in the bottom group of users.

So it appears that there is a very different America behind closed doors. Our preachers preach about fire and brimstone, but we are rather permissive in our personal habits. We want the other person to be moral, straight laced, contained in their behavior. But we do not adhere to those restrictions in our personal lives. We cheer at the conservative meetings and political conventions and the supporters of family values, but neither they nor their adherents really exhibit such fidelity. It is not that those values are not to be respected; it is just that there probably should be more of an honest understanding of that area between what we do and what we truly believe. Sometimes, it appears that we are saying with St. Augustine—Lord, make me pure….but not right now.

It also should be clear that conservative clergymen and conservative politicians now use the morality card the same way that they used to play the anti-Communist card in the 1950s. It is simply a cynical ploy to win elections and garner votes, not a real commitment to the values of middle class America. Or maybe the values of middle class America have changed, and the states, once held in happy repression, are breaking out with a vengeance.