A few weeks ago I engaged in a most unenviable task.  My father called me into his office and began discussing the family finances with me, in preparation for the day when he will no longer be with us and such responsibilities will fall onto my shoulders.  We went over the usual things, bank accounts, assets, etc., and I was relieved to learn that he had paid off the mortgage on his house.  He owns it free and clear.  One less thing to worry about.   Or so I thought. 

And then I saw the property tax bill. 

Eighteen-thousand dollars per year.  That’s what New Jersey expects him to pay for the right to keep his own home, which he already paid for with money that was already taxed.  That for a house assessed at approximately $450,000, which means that over the course of a thirty year mortgage a prospective buyer would have to pay $570,000 in taxes.  In other words, in order to own a home in North Brunswick, you have to pay for two and a half homes. 

Two things then occurred to me.

First, I realized that when my father is no longer with us, my widowed mother will be evicted from the home in which she has lived for the past twenty-seven years, not because she owes the bank anything, but because she will not be able to pay the eighteen-thousand dollars per year of what is effectively rent to the government.  Yes, I said “rent.” And that brought me to my second realization: that if the government can evict you from your home because you are unable to pay such an excessive tax bill, then you don’t really own your home.  You’re just a tenant, and the government is your landlord.  Strange, I don’t remember the government buying that house, or earning it, or working for it; it was my father who did all those things.  But as it has been so rightly said, the power to tax is the power to destroy, and in this case, New Jersey has used that power to effectively remove from its citizens the right to own and keep their property. 

I think that’s immoral.  When someone reaches retirement age, and they’ve paid off their mortgage, they ought to be able to look at their house and know that they can retire without having to worry about whether they can afford it anymore.  They shouldn’t have to worry about their wives being evicted when they’re no longer around.  It used to be like that in America.  In most parts of the country, it still is. 

But not in New Jersey.  In New Jersey, the politicians think “affordable housing” means constructing tenement buildings where people who can no longer afford their homes because of the taxes can live in small apartments suitable for graduate students.  My idea of “affordable housing” is making it so that people can afford to keep their own homes. 

I hear the word “socialism” thrown around a lot these days.  I don’t really think that fits.  What’s happening in New Jersey reminds me more of the old system of medieval fiefdoms, where feudal lords would draw arbitrary lines on a map and simply declare that they owned everything within that perimeter, and everyone living inside it would either have to pay tribute or be evicted from their land.  No, New Jersey is not plagued with socialism.  New Jersey is a serfdom. 

The effects have been obvious and perilous.  Property values are plummeting, thanks in large part to the heavy tax burdens placed on the properties (remember, every dollar a buyer has to pay in taxes is a dollar less he can pay you for your house).  People are leaving the state in droves.  Unemployment in New Jersey is skyrocketing, and Governor Corzine’s plan is, as he said, “If you don’t like high unemployment, move to North Dakota.” Yes the economy is bad everywhere, but it is especially bad in New Jersey, Michigan, and California, three states that follow the same big government, huge taxes, enormous spending philosophy, a consistently disproven model that has failed everywhere it has been tried.  No nation, no state, no municipality has ever taxed itself into prosperity. 

What is happening in New Jersey right now represents a comprehensive failure of government on every level.  Go to a North Brunswick Town Council meeting and you’ll hear the Democrats there blame the Democrats in Trenton.  Go to Trenton and you’ll hear those Democrats blame the local Democrats.  They’re both right.  There’s plenty of blame to go around, but for once you can’t pin any of it on the Republicans because there simply aren’t any within sight, and there haven’t been for a while.  Unless, that is, you want to blame the ghost of Christie Whitman, last seen in these parts in the early days of 2001.  Since then the Democrats have had an absolute monopoly on all levels of government in this state, and a monopoly never benefits the consumer.

Look, my grandfather was a Democrat, my father was a Democrat, and I’ve voted for Democrats.  In fact, I owe much of my professional success to a number of Democrats who helped me when I was going through law school, and who continued to help me when I first came out.  This isn’t about partisanship for me.  It’s simply about facts, and the fact is that the American system requires checks and balances to function properly.  In New Jersey, we have no checks and balances; we have one party rule.  And as we can see, one party rule leads to absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

It’s time to break the monopoly.  It’s now or never.  

By Jordan B. Rickards

Click here for the North Brunswick Sentinel’s profiles of Mary Chyb, Jordan Rickards, and their democrat opponents.

The following article was originally published in the Home News, Saturday, October 17, 2009.  It can be accessed at the following link: http://mycentraljersey.com/article/20091017/OPINION02/910170312/1061

Break Dem stronghold in North Brunswick

As we approach the finish line of another election cycle where most of us are left disappointed by the candidates at the top of the ticket, I challenge my friends and neighbors to do something most will consider radical. How about this year, we concentrate on some local candidates and local issues?

I cannot find one person in North Brunswick who is not complaining about out-of-control taxes, road congestion, overcrowded neighborhoods and schools, due to illegal rental practices, etc.

We all agree that our town is not nearly as nice as it was 10 years ago, yet we cannot seem to vote for “change” in our municipal government.

For those who do not know, there are names near the bottom of the election ticket each and every year, and in my opinion, these people affect our daily lives more than the top of the ticket.

So here is my challenge to my community: Ask yourself if you are happy with automatic double-digit tax increases and reductions in services every year.

Think about whether or not you actually know who is living in your neighborhood.

Take a ride around town and ask yourself why so many retail and commercial buildings are empty.

Talk to your neighbors, and see if they are happy with the direction of our town. Ask your older kids if they plan to stay in North Brunswick and raise a family.

And then, do some reflection, some soul-searching, and some research, and ask yourself if another year of status quo with your local government is satisfactory. For me, the answer is no.

One-party rule in North Brunswick and Middlesex County has not benefited my neighbors, my community or me. The only way to address the issues that concern us is to bring some balance, some vision, and some opposition to town hall.

This year, North Brunswick has two very qualified, caring people looking to penetrate the iron wall of decade-long, one-party rule. Mary Chyb and Jordan Rickards are two people I have come to know as intelligent, knowledgeable, passionate and determined, promising assurance that our concerns will be addressed in an honest, open forum.

If you are looking for real “change” in local government, this is the ticket. I hope you consider every option.

DAVID BARNHARD

North Brunswick

The recent Home News report that “Money woes force cops from schools” in North Brunswick is just the latest example of the failed public safety policies of the Democrats on the Town Council. 

North Brunswick’s crime rate is now 5th worst out of the 25 towns and boroughs in Middlesex. It is double that of Old Bridge, and four times worse than that of Helmetta. Since 1997, major crime in North Brunswick is up 25%, according to the annual New Jersey State Police Crime Report (major crime being defined as murder, rape, robbery, assault, and burglary).  During that same period of time, neighboring New Brunswick’s crime rate has been cut in half.  How is this possible?  There are two factors that contributed to this mess. 

First, while New Brunswick was zoning out its high-crime areas, North Brunswick was zoning them in.  Second, as the criminal element was moving into town, the Town Council not only refused to increase our police force, they cut it substantially.  Indeed, in 2000, when Councilman Carlo Socio and now-Mayor Womack won election as “Reform” Democrats, we had 84 police officers and a budget of $30 million.  Today we have a budget that is 50% higher ($45 million), our taxes are at record levels, but the police department has been cut to 78 officers.  So don’t let the Democrats tell you they don’t have the money for police officers.  The Democrats are taking and spending more money than ever, they just choose not to spend it on our safety. 

And now our kids don’t have police officers to protect them when they go to school.  As a former prosecutor who spent two years doing juvenile cases, this alarms me, because I know how dangerous North Brunswick High School has become, and anyone who tells you we do not have a gang problem there is ignoring the obvious.  But characteristically, Mayor Womack did not seem worried that public safety would be compromised by the removal of officers from the schools, saying glibly: “The primary job of the police department is patrol.”

No, the primary job of the police department is to keep us safe, and the Mayor’s idea that our kids will be equally safe in schools without police officers displays at best a complete disconnect from reality, and at worst a flippant and reckless disregard for the safety of our community. 

Hopefully, North Brunswick will not become synonymous with Columbine or Virginia Tech before voters figure this out.  It’s bad enough that North Brunswick is becoming New Brunswick.

By Jordan B. Rickards, Esq.

Republican candidate for Township Council, and former Assistant Prosecutor of Middlesex County

Universal Healthcare Should Not Be So Universal

            Why should I pay for the healthcare of a child molester?  It seems that our national healthcare debate is driven by a common assumption that all Americans are entitled to healthcare simply by virtue of their citizenship (and in some cases, despite their decided non-citizenship).  But what about those who don’t deserve it?  Rapists, murderers, men who beat their wives, we could go on and on.  How am I morally obligated to help them?  Why should society subsidize those who ruin it?  Put more bluntly, why should victims of abuse be taxed to pay for the well-being of their abusers?

            We are fortunate to live in a country that recognizes that we all have certain natural rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  But sometimes people forfeit those rights by their actions.  When we incarcerate a violent criminal, we take away their liberty and their ability to pursue happiness, and we are justified in doing so.  Likewise, even if one accepts the basic premise that everyone is born with a natural right to healthcare, there has to come a point where one has caused such harm to others that he has forfeited whatever claim he may have had to my help, and the help of those he has harmed.  

            And what about people who choose to pursue happiness by abusing drugs?  There was a story out of Britain a few weeks ago about a 17-year-old boy who was doing $300 worth of cocaine per week, and not surprisingly suffered a heart attack.  He has since been fitted with a pacemaker.  Now, pretend for a moment he was an American.  Should I have to pay for that?  In so doing, wouldn’t I just be subsidizing his drug habit?

            Understand that I’m fairly libertarian, but liberty has consequences.  If you want to abuse your body, that’s your business.  But don’t ask me to pay for it.  And if you want to abuse children, or women, or anyone else, don’t come looking to me to pay for your medical care. 

by Jordan B. Rickards, Esq.

Republican candidate for North Brunswick Township Council

See this article as it appeared in the Home News Letters to the Editor section on September 1

“North Brunswick Democrats Only Have One Answer For Everything: Tax and Spend”

At a time when we need our money the most, the Democrats on the North Brunswick Township Council are taking more of it than ever.

In 2001 the municipal tax rate was 67 cents for every $100 of property value assessed.  But since 2002, under the so-called “leadership” of Democrat Mayor Francis “Mac” Womack (who at the time was Council President), that number has steadily and consistently risen.  Indeed, it seems that when the Democrats are not busy seizing land to hand over to developers, they do little other than raise taxes.  This year, the Mayor and Council members (all Democrats) report that they are raising taxes yet again, this time to 78.5 cents per $100, meaning that the owner of a $250,000 house — whose property taxes are already the highest in the nation, at a rate of close to $7,000 annually in municipal, county, and State property taxes — now owes an additional $287.  Over the course of a 30 year mortgage, that homeowner was already on pace to pay an astronomical $210,000 in property taxes, just for the right to keep his own home.  The property tax burden is three times greater here than it is in Pennsylvania, and almost nine times greater than in Delaware.  But apparently, the North Brunswick Democrats feel we’re not paying enough. 

In announcing the most recent tax increase, Democrat Councilman Carlo Socio, who is running for re-election this year, complained that “Any time that you have a reduction in your spending it should be a good thing and it should translate into a more positive outcome.  That unfortunately is not being realized right now due to Trenton.” There are two things wrong with that statement. 

First, contrary to Councilman Socio’s claim, the town has not effectively reduced spending, but rather has increased it exponentially.  In 2001, Councilman Socio’s first year, the town budget was $30 million.  Just eight years later, Councilman Socio and the rest of the Democrats have increased the budget to $44.8 million.  While this is a slight decrease from last year, it is overall a massive fifty percent increase over Socio’s eight year term.  How many North Brunswick residents can say their incomes have increased fifty percent over the last eight years, to meet the Democrats’ out-of-control spending?  How many local businesses can say that their profits are up fifty percent?

Secondly, Councilman Socio’s complaint that the problem is “due to Trenton” is both irresponsible, and self-defeating. Trenton — which, by the way is entirely controlled by Democrats, just like North Brunswick — did not force Socio and the rest of the Council Democrats to recklessly add $15 million to our budget over the last eight years. Socio and his cohorts in the Council cast the votes, they are to blame for the mess they’ve created, and they should have the courage to take responsibility. Unless, of course, they would like us to believe that the North Brunswick Township Council is nothing more than a puppet for Jon Corzine and the greater Democratic machine; a claim that does not seem all that implausible given their like-minded, reckless, tax-and-spend-and-tax-again policies that are bankrupting the State and its citizens.

When he was running for re-election in 2003, Councilman Socio bragged “On taxes, we’ve held the line.” Right, the line that points straight up as our taxes have gone higher and higher.  He also said “When [Mayor Womack] and I ran for the Township Council in 2000, we promised the people of North Brunswick that we understood their call to take both the municipal government as well as the Democratic Party in a new direction.”  And this is the “new direction”?  Funny, I’ve been living in North Brunswick for thirty years, and I don’t remember the people of this town ever calling for oppressive taxes, a prohibitively high cost of living, and a wasteful, enormously inefficient local government.

The problem is that there are no Republicans on the Township Council to challenge any of these Democrats, thereby allowing their spending (and, as logically follows, our taxes) to go completely unchecked.  Perhaps this year, instead of simply voting a party line on Election Day, North Brunswick residents should heed the following warning: “We’ve seen how one-party government works in North Brunswick.  We need balance to make sure history does not repeat itself.” Those words were spoken by Carlo Socio when he was running in his first election to the Council back in 2000, using the campaign slogan “got balance?”  Socio went on to observe that a one-party government “is shortsighted and makes bad decisions.” His running mate at the time, current Mayor Womack, agreed, saying “I think a two-party relationship is critical.”

Jordan B. Rickards, Esq.

Republican candidate for Township Council

See this article as it appeared in the Home News Letters to the Editor section on August 7

The Mayor of North Brunswick is a Democrat.  All members of the Town Council are Democrats.  Every one of the Freeholders are Democrats.  The Governor is a Democrat.  Both Assemblymen from this district are Democrats, as is our Congressman, as is our State Senator, as are both of our United States Senators.  And let’s not forget the President.  All this gives the Democrats an immense financial advantage.  If we want to have any chance of effecting change we have to start winning elections, and we cannot do that without your financial support.  We are an entirely volunteer organization, but we need your help raising money.  You can expect the Democrats to have raised something close to $40,000 on hand by election day.  We need at least half of that.  So please, explore our website, click on the candidates links, and if you like what you see, and agree with us that these Democrats are taking more and more from us, while providing less and less, then click the “Donate Now” button, and help make a difference.  Alternatively, you can donate items you don’t want anymore for us to auction off on EBay.  Just email us at nbrochairman@gmail.com and we will arrange pick up of your donation.  And rest assured, your contribution will go a long way.  Thanks in advance.

Jordan B. Rickards

Candidate for Town Counsil

In a recent lecture at Ohio State University, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg offered a theory as to why nations created judicial systems post World War II with the power to revoke legislation found to be contrary to their own constitutions.  “What happened in Europe was the Holocaust,” she said, “and people came to see that popularly elected representatives could not always be trusted to preserve the system’s most basic values.”

And judges can?

Her remark demonstrates frightening incognizance of history, specifically the Nuremberg trials, the third of which was against sixteen German jurists and lawyers.  In that case the defendants were accused and most were ultimately convicted of, amongst other things, “War crimes through the abuse of the judicial and penal process, resulting in mass murder, torture, [and] plunder of private property.” It was through them that Hitler was able to effect his “racial purity” program.  They provided the illusion and stamp of legitimacy.  

The point is that judges are just human beings, political appointees no more removed from passion or prejudice, no more moral or immoral, no less subject than anyone else to the abuses that power – and indeed, near absolute power – necessarily brings.  Yes, judicial review is a mechanism by which the courts can protect whatever “rights” it finds to be fashionable at a given moment in history.  But it also empowers a court to remove those rights. 

In the same talk, Justice Ginsburg remarked that she doesn’t “understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law” in the Supreme Court’s interpretation of American law.  She went on to ask rhetorically “Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?”

Because the issue is not simply a matter of wisdom, but also of values, that’s why.  Our laws, after all, are really nothing more than our values codified.  To look to other nations in the interpretation of our law is to graft their value system onto our own.  The potential consequences are alarming.  Imagine looking to Afghanistan, which recently legalized rape, to interpret anything to do with women’s rights.  Imagine looking to China to interpret our First Amendment rights to free speech, free press, and freedom of religion.  Imagine looking to Iran to interpret our Eight Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment.  And while it is true that our Supreme Court has not (yet) gone to that extreme, they have only avoided it by creating a value judgment of their own, and a questionable one at that: effectively that when they look to foreign jurisdictions for guidance, they consider only white, Anglo-Saxon countries.

At least by limiting our courts to interpreting our laws by our own history – as opposed to those of foreign jurisdictions – we can control those interpretations.  But by ignoring history and pretending that judges are somehow above the possibility — indeed, likelihood — that they will abuse their power, and by allowing them to transpose foreign values onto our own, we invite the very erosion of rights that our democratic system is designed to provide, and that ultimately, only God can secure.

Posted by Jordan B. Rickards, candidate for Town Council