Inquirer Watch Part 1

Shocking news over at the Inqy, they've endorsed Senator Corzine for Governor. I'm sure there was lots of hand wringing by the editorial board over that selection.

The endorsement is tepid by any measure:

Both Republican Doug Forrester and Democratic Sen. Jon Corzine bring more experience, maturity and business acumen to the task than did Jim McGreevey in 2001. Although their obscenely expensive TV war lacks ideas and solutions, the candidates themselves have thoughtful agendas. The Editorial Board's recommendation to lead New Jersey for the next four years is JON S. CORZINE.

Corzine, 58, has compiled a good record in his single term as a U.S. senator. He was among the leaders who enacted greater corporate accountability and ethics in the wake of the Enron scandal. He helped to block President Bush's ill-advised proposal to drastically change Social Security. Since the 9/11 attacks, he has advocated vigorously to bolster chemical-plant security.

Corzine has voted the party line every time so as to knock rock the boat. The man spent $60-million to get the seat and the best the Inqy can say is that he cleaned up after Enron, a mess that was exascerbated by his former employer. He has acted to stop the SS proposals but has not offered a solution of his own, and the security concerns of chemical plants have been at the leading edge since 9/11.

This is what the Inqy bases its endorsement on? Let's continue:

...His earlier career as cochairman of the investment banking firm Goldman Sachs gives Corzine a better grasp than most public officials of economic challenges and solutions. Corzine's plan to finance increased research and development at state universities is a sound way to promote growth in the high-tech and pharmaceutical industries.

Let's parse this a bit. Corzine's assension to co-chairman of a company that is over 100 years old makes him more capable of running the state then a man who created a company and built it into an industry leader? I know of many business owners who would beg to differ with that analysis.

...Neither candidate promises a long-term solution to high property taxes. But Corzine's idea to increase rebates by 10 percent per year, for households with less than $200,000 in income, is more realistic in light of the state's annual budget crises.

Forrester's plan calls for the Legislature to pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing 10 percent cuts in property tax bills for three years, no matter your income level. Not only will his plan be harder to achieve politically, it will be significantly more daunting to the state treasury than Corzine's proposal. Forrester says he will find the savings by eliminating waste and fraud; many a politician's plans have foundered on that shallow promise. And Corzine supports the worthwhile idea of a citizens' constitutional convention to devise a long-term fix for funding public education; Forrester rejects the notion.

Here the editorial board really shows their stripes; the states coffers can survive a 10% decrease in revenue, but in no way can 30% of the money be returned to citizens. And every right-thinking person knows that "eliminating waste and fraud" is conservative code for ripping off the poor.

Does the Inquirer really believe that state government in NJ can't be reduced by 30% and still function? Hell, every newspaper in the US seems to have fired 30% of their staff and continue to turn out lame opinions such as this.

Either way, the endorsement, as I said, is tepid at best.