The NY Times is out tonight with a story about some of the spending cuts and proposals in the Governors budget. The other day the Auditor reported Senator Sweeney was not in favor of extending the tax on people making more than $400,000 and and the Governor would veto it. We questioned why not make him veto it and send him a bill that had the extension. Apparently, Sweeney had a change of heart and is questioning the lack of even considering it tonight:
"The fact that the governor took that higher income tax off the table, I think is a major mistake on his part," said the Senate president, Stephen M. Sweeney, a Gloucester County Democrat who has been an ally of Mr. Christie's in cutting public-sector pensions. "This is a very cold budget. There has to be a little more compassion for the middle class and poor, because all the burden is being put on them."
Speaker Oliver already said the other night that she believes there is support in her caucus for an extension. The public opposes getting rid of the tax on the super rich across the board, including the more well off. If the Governor wants to take this stand, the Democrats should make him do it and not just talk about it. That can only happen if Senator Sweeney and the Senate join the Assembly sending the Governor a bill that includes it.
And this brings me to the point that we saw back in the marriage equality debate. Sweeney wants to be the Senate President, which is, by definition, a LEADERSHIP position. Which, of course, means he should LEAD. By claiming that Christie will just veto it anyway, he is being a defeatist and not leading HIS caucus to do what the majority of New Jerseyans want anyway.
Say what you want (and we certainly do) about Republicans - but they stand up for what they want, do it unabashedly and don't care if the polls show otherwise. It is one of the things that people actually respected about George W. Bush - you may not agree with him, but you know exactly where he stands and he won't back down from what he believes. And the problem with many Democrats - and from what we have seen so far, Senator Sweeney is one of them - they may feel one way but won't stand up for it because of some weak reasoning that makes the public feel that they really won't stand up for what they believe in or what their constituents want.
This is nice that Sweeney is starting to come around, but he should be ahead of this no brainer of an issue - especially as a LEADER.
I highly doubt the new Governor plans on listening, but the NJEA put out an ad, which I've seen on TV hitting on the Governor's proposed budget cuts to education. In the ad, the Teacher of the year talked about being worried about the Governor's proposed cuts:
"Many local schools will have to increase class size, lay off teachers and cut important programs. ... And the even larger cuts you propose for the next school year will make it even harder for children to succeed."
The Governor didn't listen to the NJEA before, so I don't know that he'll start listening now. You can see the ad here:In advance of the Governor's budget address today, here is what the NJEA president had to say:
"This budget is a disaster for public school children and for older students who want to further their education beyond high school," said Keshishian. "On the other hand, this budget is an unconscionable gift to those earning more than $400,000 a year. Gov. Christie is slashing education in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy.
On Tuesday, Governor Christie will propose a constitutional amendment that would limit property tax increases to 2.5% per year. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/christie_will_propose_constitu.html While on paper this seems like a good idea, it immediately reminded me of another good idea at the time that is backfiring today—California’s Proposition 13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978)
California, a state notorious for ballot initiatives, passed Proposition 13 in 1978 in order to help people stay in their long-term homes that they could no longer afford due to rising property taxes. Proposition 13 limits taxes to 1% of a property’s assessed value, which under the proposition is only allowed to increase a maximum of 2% per year. Under this proposition, long time homeowners pay a lower property tax bill than their new neighbors. On paper it is a good idea, but the long-term effects are devastating. Proposition 13 also treats businesses and commercial properties the same as homeowners.
Of course with Christie’s proposal, the devil is in the details. Unlike Proposition 13, Christie’s proposal does not address the fluctuation in real estate prices (that I know about). What would a housing bubble and burst such as the recent one do to Christie’s proposal? This leaves me with more questions than answers. Services such as public schools, police, fire, public libraries, and infrastructure have been cut because of decreasing revenue. Especially after the recent storms that New Jersey had this winter, do we really want to gut first responders and infrastructure repair?
Of course now issues like Proposition 13 are not new. California’s financial problems make New Jersey look like a fiscal genius. The budget problems that California faces today can be linked back to Proposition 13. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1904938,00.html The proposition also dramatically impacted the state’s per pupil educational spending, which is currently 48th in the nation and California’s public schools have suffered. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1907504,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-sidebar
Now that there is a case study for how Proposition 13 affects the government over the long term, it makes no sense that yet another state would adapt this model. This proposed constitutional amendment is not fiscally responsibl. When the budget is debated between Christie and the Democrats in the legislature, I hope that the Democrats bring up the long-term effects of Proposition 13 on California. This is not a time for the Democrats to act like spineless wimps and they should fight this every step of the way. I’m a recent transplant to New Jersey and I see it as a perfect fit for me. However if Chris Christie has his way, I may have to reconsider in the long-term, as will many New Jerseyans.
One of the key differences that has emerged resulted from Cryan's push to restore a tax surcharge on the wealthiest New Jerseyans. Cryan is advocating for the so-called "millionaire's tax" both on the merits (it would raise money during a budget crunch) and on the politics (it would give Democrats a chance to portray Gov. Chris Christie as tool of the rich and enemy of the working class). But Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-Gloucester), The Auditor is told by key Statehouse sources, has told Cryan he doesn't support it and Christie would veto it.
It makes no sense on any level. There is widespread support for a millionaires tax, including among the wealthy. Even Republicans are split down the middle on the issue. Cutting the millionaire's tax is an unpopular move, but it looks like Sweeney is about to give Christie a pass on it. So let Christie veto it and draw the contrast about who everyone is fighting for. I don't get the strategy on a practical or political level.
While millionaires get tax cuts, the working class faces higher bus fares, less funding for schools, and higher property taxes. If the Democrats aren't willing to show they will stand up and fight for the people that put them there and are taking it on the chin, why should those people keep fighting to put them in office? It's time for our leaders to stand up, not down.
Zack Fink has a story about Lou Manzo, who has announced he will hold a press conference next week to accuse federal prosecutors of misconduct in building a case against him.
Toward the end of Fink's story, which he titled "Jack Shaw's last words," he has this exchange that occured after Manzo and Jersey City Political consultant were waiting in jail:
When asked about the nature of the interrogation Manzo says Shaw told him "Guantanamo's got nothin' on these guys." Shaw died a week later,...an apparent drug overdose which Manzo believes was not intentional.
According to Fink, Shaw told Manzo he had been interrogated for "several hours" the night before at a hotel room in Secaucus trying to get him to implicate Joe Doria, who still hasn't been charged. Even if you believe what Manzo is saying, I don't know how he will ever prove what he's saying because Shaw isn't around to corroborate the story. And it's not like Manzo will be able to clear his name in the court of public opinion, past a correction on the inside pages of a paper.
Confidant to Governor Christie and NJ State Senator Joe Kyrillos attended a Middletown Board of Education budget forum recently and started talking about how now is the time to allow "really smart people" to make decisions about how to handle the budget crisis that effects the school system due to the Governors budget cuts. He just doesn't think he's one of those really smart people apparently: (h/t Middletown Mike)
On the losing side, well, just about everything else.
When it comes to the service cuts and fare increases for NJ Transit however, this is a world of hurt for New Jerseyans on so many levels. NJ Transit recently released a "proposal" with public hearings to be held later this month, that deal with a 25% fare increase in many instances to deal with the funding cuts Christie proposed last month. On top of the fare increase - which largely hits those who commute into Manhattan for work as well as those who rely on public transportation (read: more lower and middle income people) to get to work or to get around. So while the super rich get a tax cut that can help them with their vacation home or 4th car, everyone else gets a transportation tax increase.
Further modernization of these systems in New Jersey is fundamental to providing a safe and operational infrastructure while improving the quality of life for the state's residents.
So not only does Christie screw over those who can afford it least, he does it by cutting mass transit and public transportation services, which could very well lead to more use of cars, more pollution and more stress on our already overstrained roads and bridges.
But at least Wal-Mart and the super rich will be happy.
The campaign of Jon Runyan is off to a sputtering start, though he now has the backing of all county parties in the 3rd District. First it was revealed that he's a donkey farmer masquerading as an elephant. Then he had his uninspiring debut in Camden County. This line stands out to me and has been repeated a few times already:
Runyan says he believes the country is being taken in the wrong direction by career politicians.
It seems like this will be a standard attack from Runyan. Here's the problem. Jon Runyan does like some career politicians. After all, Dawn Addiego who helped Runyan to run, was a councilwoman for many years, then a freeholder and now is an Assemblywoman. And then when asked who he admires:
Asked what political figure he admires, he in fact names Christie.
That would be the same Chris Christie, who was a freeholder, fundraiser, appointed US Attorney and then elected Governor. I guess it's ok be a career politician if he likes you, but not if he's running against you?
Those of us in the medical field know that without the right diagnosis, you can't cure the real problem.
Right now, New Jersey is facing trying economic times. Our deficits are running high and most of our citizens feel overtaxed. Governor Christie was elected on this wave of economic anxiety. But this doesn't mean reducing or eliminating vital services and the people who provide those services is the right fix. In fact, it's the wrong fix for our communities and for our economy.
This is not an accusation from Democrats. It comes from sex-obsessed wingnuts on a reactionary website who claim Christie's nominee for Child Services is affiliated with groups promoting juvenile sexuality.
Ever since Jocelyn Elders wingnuts have been obsessed with the idea of using accusations of promoting pedophilia to torpedo nominees and embarrass politicians who don't march to their reactionary tune.
It's going to be difficult to keep track of all the promises that Governor Christie breaks, which Candidate Christie made if things keep going as they've started. Lets see what candidate Christie said:
The last thing Chris will do is to follow Corzine's lead in eliminating property tax rebates for 1.2 million New Jerseyans. The rebate currently is the only property tax relief we have, and it provides much needed, meaningful help while we put in place other reforms. We keep the rebate in place to give taxpayers some breathing room in these tough economic times.
Not only wasn't he going to cut, he was going to restore the cuts he said Corzine had made to the program, even though people said he numbers didn't add up. During the primary, Christie attacked Steve Lonegan with a radio ad saying he would get rid of property tax rebates to differentiate his position. But now Governor Christie has a new plan and it could be his latest broken promise if he follows through:
Gov. Christie is considering scaling back or eliminating property-tax rebates in his budget proposal, a move that could yield significant savings but would mean going back on a campaign pledge.
Democrats wasted no time pointing out Christie's latest flip flop and Joe Cryan remined people that it was Christie himself who called reducing property tax rebates 'a declaration of war on the middle class' and pointed to what Republican leaders said just last year
"After all, I couldn't agree more with a key Republican leader who just last year said cutting rebates 'is actually a tax increase' that 'will take money out of people's pockets and continue to drive middle class taxpayers and senior citizens to bankruptcy.'
"That same leader also added, 'It is of great concern when people cannot rely on the governor to keep his word.'
Adam has documented some of the other examples where the middle class will take it on the chin from decisions the Governor is making. Christie is trying to say he has no choice, but while he was handed the problem he is choosing the solutions he wants to go with. Christie's fantasy land promises are coming back to bite New Jerseyans in the ass. And in many cases, its those residents that can least afford that are feeling the burden. He'll continue to say he's not raising taxes, but it's really a word game because at the end of the day, we're all paying more and getting less. It's simply a transfer of who is footing the bill.
With 27 states having borrowed about $30 billion from the feds to pay their unemployment claims, it is "just not possible" to cover all of the costs "in this budget climate," Menendez said following a meeting of New Jersey's congressional delegation with Gov. Chris Christie today. Menendez said he would work to delay New Jersey's interest payments, or perhaps forgive them entirely, to provide some degree of federal help.
It's too bad Christie contributed to this climate with his attacks on the stimulus, but after all, it worked out for him.
Meanwhile, Senators Lautenberg and Menendez are outraged that Republican SenatorJim Bunning continues to block unemployement insurance.
"At the stroke of midnight, more than one million jobless Americans lost critical benefits they rely on to help pay for housing, feed their families and afford health care," said Sen. Lautenberg. "Blocking unemployment insurance and COBRA benefits is proof positive that Republicans care more about scoring political points than helping working families survive these tough economic times. Families are struggling every day to make ends meet, and I will work to end this Republican filibuster as soon as possible."
I agree with 100% with Lautenberg, but as we asked before, what's he going to doabout it? If this is so critical, why was it left for the last weekend? Why did the Senate go into recess instead of working through the cloture delay all weekend? When will Democrats pledge to reform the rules against these endless filibuster delays, and why not threaten the Republican-created idea of the nuclear constitutional option? Why isn't the President on network TV denouncing this? (Okay, network TV is talking about Bunning.)
In the "surprising side effects category," it turns out that Bunning has also stopped the "Medicare fix" meaning that doctors get an immediate 21% reduction in their fees for seeing Medicare patients. These are the cuts that Republicans like Frank LoBiondo made law but now posture against. In addition, thousands of people have been thrown out of work by Bunning. It's pathetic, and while Republicans are responsible, Democrats are their enablers.
With state and local budgets in crisis and a new governor in office vowing to slash labor costs, public employees are undoubtedly worried about their salaries and benefits, if not their job security. Just days into his term, Governor Chris Christie's transition team released a report suggesting that public employee wage freezes would apply to teachers. Last week, the State Senate passed a package of bills that would limit pensions for new government hires and require that public employees pay at least 1.5% of their salary for health insurance premiums.
However, there is one group that looks like it will come through the crisis mostly unscathed: local police officers. Going after police officer compensation is not a politically popular move, and elected officials in both parties, especially at the state level, go to great lengths to avoid angering police unions. Even Governor Christie, who eagerly picks fights with the NJEA and generally terrorizes public employees, refuses to criticize the compensation of police officers in New Jersey. The first three items on his campaign's "fact vs. fiction" page talk about how he will protect police and firefighter pensions, how Jon Corzine won't, and how Christie will oppose any shift from defined benefit to defined contribution in police and firefighter pensions. The new governor has shown relatively little interest in reforming the binding arbitration system that League of Municipalities chairman William Dressell calls "the primary reason for the continual increase of the cost of government".
New Jersey's police officers are the most well-paid in the nation. The average law enforcement officer in the state earns $79,790 per year. New Jersey police officers make 64% more than the average worker, which is second only to Nevada. New Jersey teachers, a favorite punching bag for the Republican Governor, make just 26% more than the average worker, which is equal to the national average. Even after we account for the above-average number of charter and private schools in the state, New Jersey teacher pay relative to the average worker still ranks safely outside of the top 10. Unlike law enforcement officers, New Jersey teachers must have a bachelors degree, which requires four years of time out of the workforce and (often) a significant amount of money to obtain. If, as Chris Christie seems to believe, New Jersey teachers are overpaid, then New Jersey cops are egregiously overpaid.
The only way to get police salaries under control is to reform New Jersey's binding arbitration law. Binding arbitration ensures that the interests of police and firefighters, who are not allowed to strike, are protected in labor negotiations. New Jersey's binding arbitration system regularly produces results that are more than favorable to police officers. Last January, when job losses were piling up at record pace, an arbitrator awarded Closter cops 4% annual raises for four years. Police raises under the binding arbitration system have long exceeded increases the consumer price index and average earnings. Inflation-adjusted police salaries have skyrocketed ever since the binding arbitration law was passed over 30 years ago.
Most towns are hesitant to bear the legal costs associated with arbitration when they face such a high risk of losing. Furthermore, small towns are ill-equipped to take on police unions who have much more experience in arbitration than they do. Municipalities often offer their local police officers generous annual pay increases in order to avoid binding arbitration. Frustration with the process has led local and county elected officials like Essex County Executive Joe DiVincenzo to call for abolishing the system altogether.
Christie likes to talk about his intention to "govern like a one-termer" who is willing to take on powerful public-sector unions. He will continue to not only demand for cuts in pay and benefits to teachers and other public employees, but demonize their unions as well. But don't expect him to do anything more than voice general support for arbitration reform. Christie is afraid to do anything that might hurt his reputation as a "law and order" governor, and he's not terribly eager to annoy the police unions, either.
The Asbury Park Press has a story today titled, "Can Christie keep his promises," talking about how he swore not to raise any taxes. How can he keep his promises if he's already announcing plans to break them? Even his proposal for the unemployment cutbacks still leave him raising taxes on businesses, which everyone knew he would have to do, but they're not even bothering to mention in the story?
The ongoing saga of the Delaware River dredging project will continue this week as there will be a press conference tomorrow and further movement later in the week:
With a Delaware River deepening project set to start next week, some of the project's top critics -- including Gov. Chris Christie -- have scheduled a press conference on Gloucester County's waterfront on Monday.
Christie and U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews, D-Haddon Heights, are among officials expected at the 12:15 p.m. event at Red Bank Battlefield in National Park.
In this day and age, especially in high cost-of-living states like New Jersey, many families with children need two incomes to make ends meet. The problem is that a child’s school day is typically over by 3 where most work days end at 5. Afterschool care is not always affordable for parents (years ago I provided afterschool care for 2-3 days a week at $100 a week) and too often children are left on their own during those afternoon hours. New Jersey has a great solution to this by offering New Jersey After 3, a nonprofit that partners with local community groups to offer affordable after-school care for children. However this is one of the programs on King Christie’s chopping block due to financial reasons. Speaking from a strictly fiscal point of view, this is a poor move for two reasons that could ultimately cost the state more than it saves.
If affordable after-school care is cut for New Jersey’s dual income families, many of them are going to reconsider their own financial circumstances and whether it makes sense for the family if both parents continue to work. When a household goes from two incomes to one income, often it is cut in half. When a family’s income is cut in half it means less income tax revenue and possibly subsidies for the family. Also keep in mind when families have higher incomes, they spend more money and thus New Jersey also benefits from the sales tax revenue. The 5.2 million that King Christie wants to cut would most likely not be enough to offset the possible loss of tax revenue as a result of it.
Even the governor’s spokesman agrees that New Jersey After 3 is a great program by saying that it improves test scores and behavioral problems. This is also a case where investment now could save New Jersey money in the long run. Numerous studies show that children that participate in after school programs are more successful than children left to their own devices after school. They’re less likely to get involved with drugs, gangs, and crime. Cutting programs such as New Jersey After 3 could mean an increase in crime. Do you think the money that New Jersey would spend on incarceration and law enforcement is cheaper than the cost of the after-school program?
Governor Christie, this is a very short-sighted move. Cutting money from after-school programs now might save money in the very short-term. It also might drive up property taxes as municipalities where these programs are popular could possibly keep them at the expense of the local taxpayers. Everyone knows that New Jersey is facing a tough budget crisis and that programs must be scaled back or cut. When making changes to programs, short and long term implications must be studied. I think that the Christie administration (like so many other Republican administrations) is focusing only on short-term victories at the expense of long-term victories.
Chrisite has pushed the envelope too far! This is not his money to play with. Employers and employees pay into this fund.
He has done some needed things to rein in spending but to reduce benefits simply because a fund that was solvent got raided over the years is disgraceful.
Good people are hurting and good people need that help.
Don't tell me that you are going to give the rich a taxbreak and then pay forthat tax break with unemployment benefit reductions to those is desperate times.
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar hosted a meeting with Governors and representatives of Atlantic Coast states to discuss a regional approach to wind energy development on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) on Friday. In attendance were Governor John Baldacci (Maine), Governor Donald L. Carcieri (Rhode Island), Governor Jack Markell (Delaware), Governor Bob McDonnell (Virginia), Governor Martin O'Malley (Maryland) and Governor Deval Patrick (Massachusetts) joined via phone.
Here are highlights from a press conference after the meeting:This seems like it a pretty important gathering with Governors from both sides of the aisle and those who couldn't attend were able to call in via phone. So where was our Governor?
Are we not looking to take a regional approach to development of wind energy? It's not like we have a coastline and water to work with. Maybe he sent a representative and no article chose to mention it (I checked 3), but wouldn't you think our Governor would seek out these opportunities for development, especially when they're dropped in his lap? And after all the talking he's done about getting rid of regulations, he skips a meeting on streamlining energy development? Lets hope his lack of attendance isn't an indication of his commitment to renewable energy.
Are we really paying more taxes than we used to? In my home state of New Jersey it has become conventional wisdom that we are grossly overtaxed - that tax cuts are the only cure for the slew of evils besetting us. After having watched my own property tax bills more than double since I moved to the state in 1997, it was a sentiment I found hard to gainsay. I did wonder though, if my taxes were so high, why there seemed to be no money available to pay for anything. Our schools and municipalities, after all, have been retrenching and cutting back on programs almost continuously for my entire 13 year tenure in the state, despite the vertiginous (some might say outrageous, or even confiscatory) local tax increases. I did some poking around on the intertubes and, much to my surprise, found that far from being more heavily taxed than in the past, overall tax burdens have gone down almost continuously since the mid 1960's.
The Tax Foundation, which describes itself like this
The mission of the Tax Foundation is to educate taxpayers about sound tax policy and the size of the tax burden borne by Americans at all levels of government. From its founding in 1937, the Tax Foundation has been grounded in the belief that the dissemination of basic information about government finance is the foundation of sound policy in a free society.
has a vast amount of historical tax data available on its website. In going through the data, I found that New Jersey residents' per capita tax burden (Federal, state, and local taxes taken as a whole) had actually declined by 3.1% between 1980 and 2007. The Tax Foundation's handy rubric "Tax Freedom Day" (the notional date we finish paying our taxes and start keeping our income for ourselves) was May 1 in 1980. In 2009 it was two days earlier. In 1998, my first full year in New Jersey, Tax Freedom Day was May 14. In other words, overall tax bills have gone down quite significantly since 1997 and even since 1980. The last time Tax Freedom Day in New Jersey was as early as it was last year, on April 29, was during the Carter administration.
New Jersey's police officers are the most well-paid in the nation. The average law enforcement officer in the state earns $79,790 per year. New Jersey police officers make 64% more than the average worker, which is second only to Nevada. New Jersey teachers, a favorite punching bag for the Republican Governor, make just 26% more than the average worker, which is equal to the national average. Even after we account for the above-average number of charter and private schools in the state, New Jersey teacher pay relative to the average worker still ranks safely outside of the top 10. Unlike law enforcement officers, New Jersey teachers must have a bachelors degree, which requires four years of time out of the workforce and (often) a significant amount of money to obtain. If, as Chris Christie seems to believe, New Jersey teachers are overpaid, then New Jersey cops are egregiously overpaid.
