How Chris Christie’s Plan To Replace Senator Lautenberg Will Waste Millions In Taxpayer Dollars

By Adam Peck/Think Progress

Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) announced on Tuesday afternoon that New Jersey’s special election to fill the seat vacated with the passing of Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D) will take place on October 16, three full weeks before the state’s general election and his own re-election.

The decision to hold the election at the earliest possible date instead of delaying it to take place on the same day as the statewide general election in November will cost the taxpayers anestimated $12 million in additional spending. That is a hefty price tag for a state that has endured sharp cuts to programs like tax credits for low-income families and women’s clinics.

Last year, Christie used his line-item veto authority to slash some $86 million from the budget that was passed by the Democratic-controlled legislature. Among the cuts were $6 million slashed from medical day care services, $2 million from Work First NJ child care, and $2.2 million from nursing care for the elderly. All three of these cuts could be undone for the cost of this special election.

During his remarks on Tuesday, Christie initially claimed that he was bound by state law from holding the special election on the same day as the general election, on November 4. This is a highly questionable reading of New Jersey law, however. Although state law provides that the date of a special election primary “shall be not less than 70 days nor more than 76 days following the date” of the governor’s proclamation calling the election, and the election itself shall be held within a certain number of days of the primary, it appears silent on when the governor needs to issue his proclamation setting the election date. That means Christie could have waited 18 days to issue the proclamation and hold the special election on the same day as his own re-election, thus saving the state millions of dollars. Historically, special elections also see far diminished voter turnout as compared to regularly-scheduled general elections.

Christie told reporters that the financial factors did not come into play when he was making his decision. “I don’t know what the cost is, and frankly, I don’t care,” he said.

UPDATE

The Weekly Standard dug up a bill passed by the state legislature and signed by Gov. Christie last year that sought to save local communities money by allowing school districts to move their school board elections to November, consolidating them with the general elections.

By Ian Millhiser 



Earlier today, Speaker John Boehner’s (R) office announced that American taxpayers would pay former Bush Solicitor General Paul Clement to defend the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act. Clement, a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, is widely viewed as one of nation’s leading appellate attorneys. He is also one of the most expensive:

Now head of King & Spalding’s appellate practice,Clement is rumored to be raking in $5 million a year—a figure seemingly confirmed during a panel discussion in July about the future of DC law firms. One of the panelists, O’Melveny & Myers’s DC managing partner Brian Brooks, let slip that O’Melveny had been in the running to land “a top DOJ official” but dropped out of the bidding when the annual ante reached $5 million—with three years guaranteed. “Everybody in the know knew it was Paul,” says a lawyer who attended the event.
Brooks dispelled remaining doubts when, moments later, he quipped thatformer solicitors general now “make $5 million a year.” Later Brooks laughed when asked about his comments, then coyly said, “I’m sure I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

Boehner’s office has thus far refused to release its engagement letter with this big-dollar attorney. He brushed off a five week-old request by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) to disclose how much it would cost for the House to hire outside counsel to defend DOMA in court. Nevertheless, a letter from Boehner to Pelosi confirms that Clement ischarging the American people for his work. Clement’s firm, King and Spalding, typicallycharges $900 an hour for its top attorneys.
Of course, it wasn’t so long ago that Boehner brought the nation within inches of a government shutdown because of his alleged fears that the United States is spending too much money. Apparently, Boehner’s commitment to fiscal responsibility isn’t nearly as strong as his need to ensure that no gay American receives their constitutional right to “equal protection of the laws.”

Estimate: GOP’s symbolic reading of Constitution to cost taxpayers $1.1 million

By Eric W. Dolan

It will cost taxpayers over $1 million dollars for Republicans to recite the entire United States Constitution on the House floor Thursday.

In a year when Republicans have promised to reduce wasteful spending, it is estimated that reciting the Constitution will cost $1,071,872.87 if it takes three hours to read the document.

"When one chamber of Congress is in session but not working, we the people still have to pay for members' salaries and expenses, and for their police protection, and for keeping their lights and phones and coffee machines on," Peter Keating explained to Vanity Fair.

"To get this estimate, I took the total FY 2011 costs for House salaries and expenses and House office buildings, then added half the costs of joint House-Senate expenses, the CBO, the Capitol Police and the Capitol power plant," he continued. "Then I divided that sum by 205, the number of days the House was in session last year, then divided again by 24 (the number of hours in a day) and multiplied by 3 (the estimated length in hours of members reading the Constitution)."

Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said on Tuesday that his party plans to cut $100 billion in spending this year. GOP leadership has said cuts to the US defense budget are out of the question, making key safety-net programs like Medicare, food stamps and Social Security the sole target of their legislative agenda.

"They humor people who are not expert or not fully cognizant," Kevin Gutzman, a history professor at Western Connecticut State University and conservative libertarian, told The Salt Lake Tribune.

"And then once they’ve humored them and those people go away, it’s right back to business as usual," he added. "It looks like this will be business as usual - except for the half-hour or however long it takes to read the Constitution out loud."

Along with cutting spending, Republicans have promised to scrap "job-killing" health care laws, crack down on illegal immigration, cut diplomatic and foreign aid funds, and investigate the Obama administration.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated a repeal of Obama's health reform laws would cost the US $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years.

Though Republicans said they will reduce spending by requiring cost-saving measures for all new fund outlays, they exempted a potential repeal of health care reform from the rule.

"They're going to employ budget gimmicks to try and hide the cost of their actions," Rep Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) said during a press conference yesterday. "What they are going to try to do is engage in Enron-type accounting to say that when they try and move to repeal health care a week from tomorrow, that the hit on the deficit will not matter."