Van Drew continues to engage Asselta on monetization debate

Mr. Speaker, from the bill: "In this era of limited sources of state and local revenues ... the need exists to maximize the value of their assets," the preamble to the 1999 Structured Financing Act states. "One possible way of maximizing such value is to utilize new and innovative financing structures which take advantage of the existing assets." The bill defines structured finance agreements as arrangements in which the state gets money in return for "all or a portion of its interest in state assets," although it prohibits the outright sale of any state asset to a private investor. And it defines as "assets" the same things Corzine has said he is considering monetizing, such as land, buildings, highways, development rights and air rights.

Quoting the Star Ledger Article:

“The 1999 law was designed to let the state take advantage of a particular tax loophole, essentially authorizing deals in which private firms would be able to claim the depreciation value of state assets as credits against their federal taxes. State officials only tried one deal under the 1999 law. That was a proposal in June 2001 to transfer the depreciation value of 12 state office buildings to an investor in return for a payment of about $21.3 million. The proposal won approval from the Joint Budget Oversight Committee but was never executed because federal officials outlawed such transactions before the state completed the deal. “

So Republicans merely suggested the idea of asset monetization back in 1999? Is that all they can muster?

Certainly most of all importance, this bill never appropriated money to "”such sums as may be necessary for legal and engineering fees, financial advisors and other consultants and services associated with, as well as any other costs determined necessary in preparation for, the monetization, sale, or lease of public assets”.

http://www.redjersey.net/2007/07/30/asset-monetization-back-in-1999-has-no-case-in-2007/

Van Drew should spend more time critizing Senator Lesniak and Governor Corzine rather than attacking Asselta. He should also have considered voting against the budget if he was so appalled by the Asset Monetization paragraph that remained in the budget thanks to the art of the tabling. http://www.redjersey.net/2007/07/20/the-art-of-tabling-van-drew-is-lying/

It's simple, The majority party is running away from the real issue at hand.

www.redjersey.net

"Where we don't pretend we are actually a legitimate and fair source of news"

If the government really cared about your paycheck they'd stop over-taxing the middle-class people like you. The budget harms middle class by continuing to borrow and rely on policies like Asset Monetization to pay off the growing debt. Guess what Asset Monetization will do?! Raise toll rates for the everyday worker who commutes. Asselta has supported the working people and your state worker contract (as evident by the AFL-CIO endorsement he recieved) and your complaining?

I just have one question..how much is the Van Drew campaign paying you? Or are you just and intern or a volunteer? Come on..you can't be serious.

www.redjersey.net

"Where we don't pretend we are actually a legitimate and fair source of news"

How can you support a contract and then vote against funding the contract? When the 1st district State Senator voted " No"on the Budget  he voted not to fund the contract. ....and I am supposed to support his vote? Sorry but Asselta has to stand for one thing or the other, he can't have it both ways.

Van Drew voted to fund the contract. Asselta did not.

Everything else is rhetoric. 

That "Van Drew" people post in here, but I wouldnt put it past him and his ilk. Van Drew seems to love press, but hate the "heat"

Your argument state worker, is very flawed. That's like saying Bill Baroni, who has won every union endorsement so far minus one exception, voted against the budget so he doesn't support unions and isn't pro-labor.

It's almost too easy to link everything to the budget, because everything comes from there, but they could have done it better without cutting from your paycheck. If all your worried about is your paycheck and not all the taxes than I doubt your really who you say you are. Most middle class workers worry about their taxes.

Van Drew is a joke. If this is such a boring issue, it certainly seems like Asselta has struck a chord here. Van Drew cannot even compare the votes. And if you think this is Nick's only issue, think again. Why is a majority of the labor vote going to Asselta? This is a low turnout year, Van Drew's base is fractured, and if Asselta can get the support he is supposed to get from Von Savage, he will win this race. One needs to remember the casino tax and the closing of state government last year. Those issues resonate in the first.

Asselta is getting union endorsements because he is the incumbant. 9 times out of 10 Unions will back incumbants. Corzine (Dems) won the budget nonsense and because there was no nonsense this year hardly anyone will remember (for better or for worse that is just the way it is). Furthermore, as I expressed previously Jeff is a primetime political animal, Nick is JV. I agree that Van Drew is terrible, but Nick won't win this race.

Yet somehow I'm suspect because I can see what everyone but you happens to see-- that Van Drew has a solid reputation among his constituents for listening to their concerns and then working hard to address them-- whether it's stopping tolls that Nick stood by and watched his party propose, enacting tough consumer protections, and fighting for each and every one of his communities' individual priorities and needs. He didn't just wake up because it's a tough re-election contest. He's been there day in and day out. If it's astroturfing for an unaffiliated observer who isn't on ANYONE'S payroll to say so, then I guess somehow I'm less entitled to my views than you. So be it.

News Flash: The Governor today proposed to let the voters decide on whether asset monetization is advisable. Unless Senator Asselta is opposed to letting the people decide, I think this campaign rhetoric may officially be out of wind. Besides, to quote George "My Brothers and Sisters of Labor" Geist... I respect a number of my "friends on the other side of the aisle," who have commented on this thread. But with all due respect, it's not about how any other lawmaker voted in 1999 -- it's about how Nick Asselta supported asset monetization then, versus how he's desperately trying to distance himself from it now that it's politically expedient, four months before the biggest longshot political battle of his career. Speaker Roberts isn't trying to tar an opponent for supporting something that he supported in 1999. Senator Asselta is. In other words, he was for it before he was against it. Move on, Nick. I'm not sure what you thought was going to happen with this, but it isn't going to happen. PS -- Don't look now, but your opponent has outworked you on this issue. Yet again.