Why does Chris Christie do so many things that would leave you to believe he can barely do his current job, much less the most important one in the world: the presidency of the United States?
That’s probably the most charitable way to look at the New Jersey governor’s latest bridge misstep, one that for all intents and purposes shows that Christie won’t be the Republican presidential nominee in 2016 — nor should he be.
First a little context: The original Bridgegate scandal stopped short of directly implicating the governor himself.
Yes Christie at times comes across as a bully, but it was some of his senior aides who took bullying to the next level by closing lanes on the George Washington Bridge to screw political opponents with a traffic jam.
You can’t say that about his latest bridge blunder, one in which Christie apparently willfully bullied himself into a financial mess and possible securities fraud.
The story begins with an obvious need: rebuilding New Jersey’s crumbling infrastructure, in this case the state’s dilapidated Pulaski Skyway bridge — an important piece of highway that helps connect New Jersey to Manhattan.
It then runs into an obvious obstacle: a New Jersey state budget that simply doesn’t have enough money in it to finish the project.
You would think any governor who wanted to be president (much less one with a reputation as a loose cannon) would take pains not to do anything too cute, too fiscally irresponsible or possibly illegal to pay for it.
Instead, Christie goes out of his way to raid the Port Authority slush fund for a project that clearly has nothing to do with Port Authority properties — i.e., the ports, the airports and the Lincoln Tunnel.
The Pulaski Skyway connects directly to the Holland Tunnel, which predates the PA, and PA lawyers reportedly originally believed the agency didn’t have the authority to pay for its access roads.
Another complicating factor: The PA initially said the whole project was off limits and caved only after an intense lobbying effort by the governor and his staff.
What does all this mean? Possibly a lot, and here’s why: Despite the approvals, the money came directly from Port Authority bond sales.
The securities were sold to investors who lent money to the agency with the understanding that it would be used to finance Port Authority projects.
What both the Securities and Exchange Commission and Manhattan DA Cy Vance are looking at is whether those documents misled investors. This is also known as securities fraud.
Could an exception be made to finance the Pulaski Skyway?
One rationale might be that making it easier for commuters to get to the Holland Tunnel might relieve traffic pressure on the Lincoln. Another is that some motorists who use the skyway might also find their way to and from the Lincoln Tunnel.
But there’s a flaw in this thinking: I’ve been covering municipal finance for more than 20 years, and I know that one way to avoid problems is to make some sort of disclosure about issues like this in the legal documents for the bond deals.
I checked some of the documents for these deals around the time the repairs began in 2011 — and there’s no mention of a debate over whether the skyway is an appropriate PA project.
What I did find was some broad language in which the Port Authority says bond proceeds would be used to finance infrastructure as part of a “strategic planning effort focusing on a long-range vision of the region’s transportation needs.”
We should point out that the Port Authority is a bi-state agency designed to provide infrastructure needs to both New York and New Jersey that has a long and sordid history of dubious financings on both sides of the Hudson River.
Recall the infamous JFK Airport “Tunnel to Nowhere” in the early 1990s that wasted untold millions, on top of other failed projects.
Christie, meanwhile, says he’s done nothing wrong, and the decision to go ahead with using the PA money came after consulting with state attorneys and after the PA itself gave him the green light.
Indeed, the broad language in the bond documents and the fact that this agency has been a slush fund for years might just make the legal aspect of all this go away. And we’re not exactly talking Watergate here, or for that matter, the IRS targeting scandal.
Still, this latest bridge scandal hurts.
I’m told many top Republicans — particularly on Wall Street, where his support is strongest — believe Christie’s presidential chances have now evaporated, and he might even have to soon relinquish his role as chairman of the Republican Governors Association.
But what do they expect?
A politician who built his reputation and a possible presidential campaign on the notion of fiscal responsibility — such as by taking on the teacher unions — is always playing with fire when he relies on gimmicks to balance the books.
Particularly those that might turn out to be illegal.