So Chris Christie is offering to restore the $139 million in discretionary aid to urban areas he cut from the Democratic budget. With one caveat -- the Governor gets to oversee how the money is spent.
The Governor's stated rationale is that the discretionary aid has been used by Democratic party bosses as a piggy bank. But when you look at the Governor's pattern of behavior, another reason emerges.
This Governor has publicly stated that the State Constitution gives him a lot of power, and he intends to use all of it. And the way Chris Christie uses his power is as any fundraiser would (Christie is a fundraiser at heart).
Any power the Governor gets will be used to punish those who cross him and reward those who support him. How vindictive is the Governor? He used a line item veto to cut $100,000 from a Rutgers intern program because the program was run, in part, by the Rutgers professor who chose the Democratic redistricting map over the Republican plan.
So when the Governor says he wants oversight on how urban areas spend their discretionary aid, he is really saying that he is looking for power to punish those in urban areas who cross him and reward those in urban areas who support him.
At least the Governor is consistent.
Showing posts with label Governor Christie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Governor Christie. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Monday, December 6, 2010
Wait Just A Minnesota Minute
In the Minnesota gubernatorial election, it seems that an almost-concluded recount will confirm that the Democratic-Farmer-Labor candidate Mark Dayton has beaten Republican Tom Emmer. By a very, very narrow margin, mind you, but still, by enough.
Why does this matter to New Jersey? Because this race decided who was to succeed Tim Pawlenty as Governor. Like Chris Christie, Pawlenty is a conservative Republican who governed a blue state. Pawlenty and Christie have pursued similar agendas -- alleging to have balanced budgets without raising taxes and catering to social conservatives. So, if history is unkind to Pawlenty's legacy in Minnesota, it may give Christie pause in pursuing the same policies as Pawlenty. Or at the very least provide Christie's detractors with some grist for their mills.
And Pawlenty leaves some pretty big issues on the table. For example, although Pawlenty claims to have balanced Minnesota's budget and to actually have a $399 million surplus, he did so in part by deferring some payments to the next 2 year budget cycle, such as K-12 education expenses. So not only does Minnesota's structural deficit remain, but overdue bills from the Pawlenty administration are driving the deficit for the next budget cycle to $6.2 billion. Which echoes Governor Christie's refusal to put aside money for public employee pensions and the State's structural Transportation Trust Fund deficit.
Interestingly enough, Dayton confirmed that, if elected, he would raise taxes on Minnesotans. Kind of like that other famous Minnesotan, Walter Mondale. But apparently, Minnesotans like hearing the truth (it was the only state to go for Mondale in his 1984 presidential campaign against Reagan). So if Pawlenty leaves office and the new Minnesota Governor starts saying that Pawlenty's policies were so much smoke and mirrors, leaving Minnesota in a worse state than before, so that tax increases are the only solution, it could be a message that resonates with moderates.
There may yet be some drama left for Minnesota as a result of this year's gubernatorial election. If Emmer challenges Dayton's win in court, Dayton may not be confirmed by January 3. In which case Pawlenty says he will stay on.
Minnesota has until January 15 to decide whether or not to accept $1.4 billion in Medicaid funds tied to the new federal health care law. If Pawlenty is governor on January 15, he will decline the money -- even though this was a big issue in the campaign and the candidate who said he would accept the money, Dayton, won. The reason Pawlenty won't accept the money is because he personally does not believe in big government and thus must decline the money -- which translates into a statement that accepting ObamaCare money will anger the tea party activists Pawlenty needs to survive the 2012 Republican presidential primaries.
So stay focused on Minnesota is you want some help reading New Jersey's political tea leaves.
Why does this matter to New Jersey? Because this race decided who was to succeed Tim Pawlenty as Governor. Like Chris Christie, Pawlenty is a conservative Republican who governed a blue state. Pawlenty and Christie have pursued similar agendas -- alleging to have balanced budgets without raising taxes and catering to social conservatives. So, if history is unkind to Pawlenty's legacy in Minnesota, it may give Christie pause in pursuing the same policies as Pawlenty. Or at the very least provide Christie's detractors with some grist for their mills.
And Pawlenty leaves some pretty big issues on the table. For example, although Pawlenty claims to have balanced Minnesota's budget and to actually have a $399 million surplus, he did so in part by deferring some payments to the next 2 year budget cycle, such as K-12 education expenses. So not only does Minnesota's structural deficit remain, but overdue bills from the Pawlenty administration are driving the deficit for the next budget cycle to $6.2 billion. Which echoes Governor Christie's refusal to put aside money for public employee pensions and the State's structural Transportation Trust Fund deficit.
Interestingly enough, Dayton confirmed that, if elected, he would raise taxes on Minnesotans. Kind of like that other famous Minnesotan, Walter Mondale. But apparently, Minnesotans like hearing the truth (it was the only state to go for Mondale in his 1984 presidential campaign against Reagan). So if Pawlenty leaves office and the new Minnesota Governor starts saying that Pawlenty's policies were so much smoke and mirrors, leaving Minnesota in a worse state than before, so that tax increases are the only solution, it could be a message that resonates with moderates.
There may yet be some drama left for Minnesota as a result of this year's gubernatorial election. If Emmer challenges Dayton's win in court, Dayton may not be confirmed by January 3. In which case Pawlenty says he will stay on.
Minnesota has until January 15 to decide whether or not to accept $1.4 billion in Medicaid funds tied to the new federal health care law. If Pawlenty is governor on January 15, he will decline the money -- even though this was a big issue in the campaign and the candidate who said he would accept the money, Dayton, won. The reason Pawlenty won't accept the money is because he personally does not believe in big government and thus must decline the money -- which translates into a statement that accepting ObamaCare money will anger the tea party activists Pawlenty needs to survive the 2012 Republican presidential primaries.
So stay focused on Minnesota is you want some help reading New Jersey's political tea leaves.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Chris Christie Gives Back
Chris Christie has been travelling the country supporting Republican gubernatorial candidates on his own personal "I'm not running no matter what it looks like" tour.
Here's how the Wall Street Journal describes it. The Republican Governor's Association spent $7 million to get Chris Christie elected. And now Chris Christie's advisors are letting it be known that Chris Christie has raised about $7 million for Republican governor races across the country.
And this is an essential part of the Chris Christie brand. Chris Christie rewards those who help him.
For example, many cited Christie’s appointment as a Federal prosecutor by President Bush as little more than political payback. However, Herbert Stern supported Christie’s appointment. Stern had previously held the job of U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, before becoming a respected jurist and ultimately returning to private practice.
For his support, Herbert Stern’s law firm was later awarded a no-bid monitor contract by U.S. Attorney Christie, which paid $500 an hour and ultimately netted the firm over $8 million. Also, when Sam Stern, Herbert’s son, applied for a position as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of New Jersey and was turned down, Christie personally intervened and Stern the younger was ultimately hired. Such intervention in personnel matters is against the regulations governing the hiring of Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
And John Ashcroft, the Attorney General when Chris Christie was appointed U.S. Attorney, was also rewarded. When Ashcroft returned to private practice, Christie appointed John Ashcroft’s firm to a Federal monitor position which paid more than $52 million over 18 months, one of the highest payouts ever to a Federal monitor.
Now, the good people at Reform Jersey Now are spending a lot of money to push forward the Christie agenda. One wonders how the good Governor will pay them back.
Here's how the Wall Street Journal describes it. The Republican Governor's Association spent $7 million to get Chris Christie elected. And now Chris Christie's advisors are letting it be known that Chris Christie has raised about $7 million for Republican governor races across the country.
And this is an essential part of the Chris Christie brand. Chris Christie rewards those who help him.
For example, many cited Christie’s appointment as a Federal prosecutor by President Bush as little more than political payback. However, Herbert Stern supported Christie’s appointment. Stern had previously held the job of U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, before becoming a respected jurist and ultimately returning to private practice.
For his support, Herbert Stern’s law firm was later awarded a no-bid monitor contract by U.S. Attorney Christie, which paid $500 an hour and ultimately netted the firm over $8 million. Also, when Sam Stern, Herbert’s son, applied for a position as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of New Jersey and was turned down, Christie personally intervened and Stern the younger was ultimately hired. Such intervention in personnel matters is against the regulations governing the hiring of Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
And John Ashcroft, the Attorney General when Chris Christie was appointed U.S. Attorney, was also rewarded. When Ashcroft returned to private practice, Christie appointed John Ashcroft’s firm to a Federal monitor position which paid more than $52 million over 18 months, one of the highest payouts ever to a Federal monitor.
Now, the good people at Reform Jersey Now are spending a lot of money to push forward the Christie agenda. One wonders how the good Governor will pay them back.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Quote Of Note: The Most Famous Careerist In All The Land
In recent days, I have heard reports that Clifford Janey, Newark’s School Superintendent, may be out of a job. Janey is 2 years into a 3 year contract. However, Newark schools are under the jurisdiction of the Governor, which means that Chris Christie is Clifford Janey’s boss. And for reasons as yet unstated, Governor Christie has let it be known that, not only may Janey’s contract not be renewed, it may be terminated early.
I had filed this fact away as an interesting yet innocuous tidbit until I read an editorial in Today’s Wall Street Journal about Michelle Rhee, Schools Chancellor for Washington, D.C. Ms. Rhee has just concluded a negotiation with American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten which has resulted in a noteworthy new contract. Among other terms, this new contract includes:
1. An abolition of “lock-step” pay;
2. The implementation of a voluntary performance-based compensation system;
3. Changes in tenure rules which allows bad teachers to be fired more easily and marginal teachers to be placed on probation for 2 years.
So what does this have to do with New Jersey? The WSJ editorial provides the following:
“Unfortunately, most school chancellors are careerists who don’t want to upset the unions because they are always looking for their next job. One example: Clifford Janey, whom Ms. Rhee replaced in D.C., went on to become the superintendent in Newark, N.J. whose schools may be worse than D.C.’s. Ms. Rhee, by contrast, came to her job as an outsider willing to endure the considerable abuse that the unions and their political backers threw at her.”
And so it seems that the Wall Street Journal has blessed, if not outright suggested, the replacement of Clifford Janey with an outsider who will take on the unions.
But here’s the thing. Newark teachers are not represented by the NJEA, which is adamantly opposed to merit pay and changes in tenure. The teachers union in Newark is the Newark Teachers Union, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers. Joseph Del Grosso, President of the NTU, has already gone on record as saying he is in favor of merit pay and is open to negotiation on tenure and seniority. In fact, Mr. Del Grosso did so in the Wall Street Journal.
So it seems to me that we have political theater in the making, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal and Chris Christie. Clifford Janey is being singled out as a “careerist” who must go to make room for an education industry novice. And when that novice reaches an agreement with the NTU that includes merit pay and changes to tenure rules, the Wall Street Journal and the Governor will trumpet a victory over the status quo, a victory over public employee unions and a victory over “careerists” everywhere -- conveniently overlooking the fact that the key concessions were made during Janey’s time on the job.
The Wall Street Journal has already proclaimed Chris Christie a national hero on its editorial page. But this incident seems to suggest a certain give and take between the editorial staff and the Governor that bears watching. I just find it difficult to believe that, of all the public school “careerists” in the land, the Wall Street Journal chose to make an example of the same superintendent the Governor wants to replace.
I had filed this fact away as an interesting yet innocuous tidbit until I read an editorial in Today’s Wall Street Journal about Michelle Rhee, Schools Chancellor for Washington, D.C. Ms. Rhee has just concluded a negotiation with American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten which has resulted in a noteworthy new contract. Among other terms, this new contract includes:
1. An abolition of “lock-step” pay;
2. The implementation of a voluntary performance-based compensation system;
3. Changes in tenure rules which allows bad teachers to be fired more easily and marginal teachers to be placed on probation for 2 years.
So what does this have to do with New Jersey? The WSJ editorial provides the following:
“Unfortunately, most school chancellors are careerists who don’t want to upset the unions because they are always looking for their next job. One example: Clifford Janey, whom Ms. Rhee replaced in D.C., went on to become the superintendent in Newark, N.J. whose schools may be worse than D.C.’s. Ms. Rhee, by contrast, came to her job as an outsider willing to endure the considerable abuse that the unions and their political backers threw at her.”
And so it seems that the Wall Street Journal has blessed, if not outright suggested, the replacement of Clifford Janey with an outsider who will take on the unions.
But here’s the thing. Newark teachers are not represented by the NJEA, which is adamantly opposed to merit pay and changes in tenure. The teachers union in Newark is the Newark Teachers Union, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers. Joseph Del Grosso, President of the NTU, has already gone on record as saying he is in favor of merit pay and is open to negotiation on tenure and seniority. In fact, Mr. Del Grosso did so in the Wall Street Journal.
So it seems to me that we have political theater in the making, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal and Chris Christie. Clifford Janey is being singled out as a “careerist” who must go to make room for an education industry novice. And when that novice reaches an agreement with the NTU that includes merit pay and changes to tenure rules, the Wall Street Journal and the Governor will trumpet a victory over the status quo, a victory over public employee unions and a victory over “careerists” everywhere -- conveniently overlooking the fact that the key concessions were made during Janey’s time on the job.
The Wall Street Journal has already proclaimed Chris Christie a national hero on its editorial page. But this incident seems to suggest a certain give and take between the editorial staff and the Governor that bears watching. I just find it difficult to believe that, of all the public school “careerists” in the land, the Wall Street Journal chose to make an example of the same superintendent the Governor wants to replace.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Washington Republicans Blast A Hole In New Jersey's Budget
There’s a gaping hole in New Jersey’s proposed budget.
Last night, Republicans in Washington refused to allow HR 4213 to come to the Senate floor for a vote – they filibustered it. HR 4213 is primarily thought of as a bill to extend jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed. However, the bill also included a 6 month extension of enhanced Federal Medical Assistance Percentages, i.e., more money for the states.
The budget currently under consideration in the New Jersey legislature relies on that extended FMAP money. In fact, it may be these very funds Governor Christie relied on when he restored a prescription drug benefit for seniors. And he restored that program to blunt the Democratic push to extend the Millionaires Tax.
There is no fallback plan in place to restore those lost FMAP dollars, which may actually exceed $570 million. A few weeks ago, David Rosen, legislative budget and finance officer for the Office of Legislative Services, observed that if the enhanced FMAP money evaporated New Jersey would have a serious issue.
Since the Governor is already facing some rebellions from Republican legislators who object to the tax increases already in the budget, the Governor is going to have a tough time replacing those lost FMAP dollars.
UPDATE: Treasury spokesman William Quinn has been quoted as saying that the Governor will move forward on the assumption that the $570 million in FMAP money is still on the way. But since the surplus is only $300 million, that's one risky assumption. Apparently, no one has the political will to actually get the budget right this late in the game.
Last night, Republicans in Washington refused to allow HR 4213 to come to the Senate floor for a vote – they filibustered it. HR 4213 is primarily thought of as a bill to extend jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed. However, the bill also included a 6 month extension of enhanced Federal Medical Assistance Percentages, i.e., more money for the states.
The budget currently under consideration in the New Jersey legislature relies on that extended FMAP money. In fact, it may be these very funds Governor Christie relied on when he restored a prescription drug benefit for seniors. And he restored that program to blunt the Democratic push to extend the Millionaires Tax.
There is no fallback plan in place to restore those lost FMAP dollars, which may actually exceed $570 million. A few weeks ago, David Rosen, legislative budget and finance officer for the Office of Legislative Services, observed that if the enhanced FMAP money evaporated New Jersey would have a serious issue.
Since the Governor is already facing some rebellions from Republican legislators who object to the tax increases already in the budget, the Governor is going to have a tough time replacing those lost FMAP dollars.
UPDATE: Treasury spokesman William Quinn has been quoted as saying that the Governor will move forward on the assumption that the $570 million in FMAP money is still on the way. But since the surplus is only $300 million, that's one risky assumption. Apparently, no one has the political will to actually get the budget right this late in the game.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
The Budget Debate Gets Unionized
Tomorrow, the State Assembly will attempt to override the Governor's veto of the so-called "Millionaires Tax." And the Democrats will lose that battle. But they are hoping that this will be a strategic loss in a larger war.
It seems that something akin to a Democratic party strategy is emerging. And while I'm thrilled that the majority party in the State legislature has elected to abandon its "deer-in-the-headlights" posture, I not quite sold on this new direction. Because it seems designed more to achieve political points than it is to serve the taxpayers.
So, all the Republicans in the Assembly will go on record as refusing to override the Governor's veto. From what I can make out, the idea is to tag each and every Republican with personal liability for refusing to extend the Millionaires Tax. And then to make it clear that the main objective of each plank in the Governor's platform is an anti-union one, thus turning those tags on Republicans in the Assembly into anti-union albatrosses. How will the Democrats do that?
1. The Democrats will not put the Governor's 2.5% property tax cap on the ballot this fall, and will not pass the Governor's 33 "tool kit" laws. That means that every municipality will be faced with intransigent public employee unions with no money to pay them and no new State laws to strengthen the municipalities' negotiating hands.
2. The Democrats will not move the Governor's school voucher plan forward. That means that all the extra money the Governor sent to failing public schools will stay in those public schools, and not be transferred to private schools. Which will be boon to the teachers' unions.
3. Finally, the Democrats will propose their own 2.9% cap property tax cap as an amendment to existing law, rather than a Constitutional amendment. Notably, this cap would retain the exemption for increased health care costs for public employees, to which the Governor has openly objected.
So, at the end of the day, the Democrats intend to let the Governor have his budget, but deny the Governor his victory over the unions. The Governor has been attempting to make a national name for himself as something of a union buster, and this strategy will make it more apparent to voters the extent to which Chris Christie's anti-union agenda is more important to him that is getting a vastly reduced budget.
But I can't help thinking that somehow the taxpayers are losing out here. It will be impossible to get real property tax reform unless the unions are brought to the bargaining table. The Governor's union bashing leaves the unions little option but to hunker down and wait for 2012. The Democrats' strategy allows the unions to do just that.
And the taxpayers? They just keep paying.
It seems that something akin to a Democratic party strategy is emerging. And while I'm thrilled that the majority party in the State legislature has elected to abandon its "deer-in-the-headlights" posture, I not quite sold on this new direction. Because it seems designed more to achieve political points than it is to serve the taxpayers.
So, all the Republicans in the Assembly will go on record as refusing to override the Governor's veto. From what I can make out, the idea is to tag each and every Republican with personal liability for refusing to extend the Millionaires Tax. And then to make it clear that the main objective of each plank in the Governor's platform is an anti-union one, thus turning those tags on Republicans in the Assembly into anti-union albatrosses. How will the Democrats do that?
1. The Democrats will not put the Governor's 2.5% property tax cap on the ballot this fall, and will not pass the Governor's 33 "tool kit" laws. That means that every municipality will be faced with intransigent public employee unions with no money to pay them and no new State laws to strengthen the municipalities' negotiating hands.
2. The Democrats will not move the Governor's school voucher plan forward. That means that all the extra money the Governor sent to failing public schools will stay in those public schools, and not be transferred to private schools. Which will be boon to the teachers' unions.
3. Finally, the Democrats will propose their own 2.9% cap property tax cap as an amendment to existing law, rather than a Constitutional amendment. Notably, this cap would retain the exemption for increased health care costs for public employees, to which the Governor has openly objected.
So, at the end of the day, the Democrats intend to let the Governor have his budget, but deny the Governor his victory over the unions. The Governor has been attempting to make a national name for himself as something of a union buster, and this strategy will make it more apparent to voters the extent to which Chris Christie's anti-union agenda is more important to him that is getting a vastly reduced budget.
But I can't help thinking that somehow the taxpayers are losing out here. It will be impossible to get real property tax reform unless the unions are brought to the bargaining table. The Governor's union bashing leaves the unions little option but to hunker down and wait for 2012. The Democrats' strategy allows the unions to do just that.
And the taxpayers? They just keep paying.
Monday, June 14, 2010
The Christie Brand
Monday's Wall Street Journal ran an interesting piece on Chris Christie. It seems our Governor is making a name for himself by being one of the most anti-union leaders in the nation. Apparently, the Governor's penchant for referring to "mindless, faceless union leaders" has not gone unnoticed.
Understanding that union-busting is the issue on which the Governor seeks to stake his reputation is key to any attempt to understand the Governor's actions and priorities. Just ask Bret Schundler, who dared to compromise with the New Jersey Education Association on merit pay and tenure.
Using this "union-buster" image as a lens, certain aspects of the Governor's proposed Constitutional amendment that would cap property tax increases at 2.5% annually, using Massachusetts as an example, leap to the foreground. First, let us pause to consider the irony of a conservative Republican using Massachusetts as an example for anything. Then, let us consider the statements of Governor Christie's detractors who say that in 1980, when Massachusetts adopted its cap, state unemployment was at 5.8%, nowhere near the current New Jersey rate of 9.8%. And that the Massachusetts economy was growing at the time. Finally, let's remember that the State recently passed a 4% cap on property tax increases which is beginning to show results.
The Governor acknowledges that Cap 2.5 will cause a lot of pain to municipalities across the State, especially so in light of the state of the economy. To soften the anticipated blow, the Governor has devised a "tool kit" for local governments. And a big piece of the tool kit is giving municipalities the ability to bust unions. The tool kit would restore the ability of municipalities to bind unions to a "last, best" offer in negotiations after all attempts at mediation have failed. And the tool kit allows municipalities to opt out of civil service laws.
So, while Cap 2.5 is aimed at reducing property taxes, the clear subtext is to undermine public employee unions. Because reducing the State budget without raising taxes is not enough to build a national reputation for Chris Christie. Any tea-party courting far right Governor can do that. The Governor needs to imprint the plan with his "brand" -- Chris Christie, union buster.
Oh, and the existing 4% property tax cap? Governor Christie says that that cap allows for too many exemptions. Like exemptions for money to provide public employees with better benefits.
And after all, the Governor has a reputation to keep.
Understanding that union-busting is the issue on which the Governor seeks to stake his reputation is key to any attempt to understand the Governor's actions and priorities. Just ask Bret Schundler, who dared to compromise with the New Jersey Education Association on merit pay and tenure.
Using this "union-buster" image as a lens, certain aspects of the Governor's proposed Constitutional amendment that would cap property tax increases at 2.5% annually, using Massachusetts as an example, leap to the foreground. First, let us pause to consider the irony of a conservative Republican using Massachusetts as an example for anything. Then, let us consider the statements of Governor Christie's detractors who say that in 1980, when Massachusetts adopted its cap, state unemployment was at 5.8%, nowhere near the current New Jersey rate of 9.8%. And that the Massachusetts economy was growing at the time. Finally, let's remember that the State recently passed a 4% cap on property tax increases which is beginning to show results.
The Governor acknowledges that Cap 2.5 will cause a lot of pain to municipalities across the State, especially so in light of the state of the economy. To soften the anticipated blow, the Governor has devised a "tool kit" for local governments. And a big piece of the tool kit is giving municipalities the ability to bust unions. The tool kit would restore the ability of municipalities to bind unions to a "last, best" offer in negotiations after all attempts at mediation have failed. And the tool kit allows municipalities to opt out of civil service laws.
So, while Cap 2.5 is aimed at reducing property taxes, the clear subtext is to undermine public employee unions. Because reducing the State budget without raising taxes is not enough to build a national reputation for Chris Christie. Any tea-party courting far right Governor can do that. The Governor needs to imprint the plan with his "brand" -- Chris Christie, union buster.
Oh, and the existing 4% property tax cap? Governor Christie says that that cap allows for too many exemptions. Like exemptions for money to provide public employees with better benefits.
And after all, the Governor has a reputation to keep.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Quotes Of Note: A Lost Generation Of Students
In the past few months, much has been written about a study released by the Manhattan Institute supporting Cap 2.5, the Governor's proposal to amend the State Constitution so that no municipality can increase property taxes above 2.5% without approval from the voters. The Manhattan Institute is a conservative, market-oriented think tank.
In a publication entitled "Do Property-Tax Caps Work: Lessons For New Jersey From Massachusetts," the Manhattan Institute's Josh Barro writes that Massachusetts’s experience with capping property tax increases at 2.5% annually could significantly restrain tax growth without hurting educational outcomes in New Jersey. While the rate of increase in Massachusetts' property taxes has slowed significantly since the implementation of the cap, current educational test scores are slightly better than those in New Jersey.
Governor Christie was happy to present this study to the public as proof that New Jersey can cap property taxes without sacrificing excellence in education. However, the Governor failed to highlight one key fact. In an endnote to his report, Mr. Barro writes:
"Readers may be interested to know: If high spending does not explain Massachusetts’ unparalleled educational success, what does? A full answer is beyond the scope of this paper. But policy experts have pointed to a series of curriculum and testing reforms in the 1990s that appear to have significantly improved performance."
So, to be clear, property taxes were capped in 1980, but Massachusetts' educational success stems from curriculum and testing reforms enacted over a decade later. So what happened between the time property taxes were capped and educational reforms were enacted?
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has reviewed the Manhattan Institute's report and provided an answer to this question.
"Schools suffered in Massachusetts between the adoption of the [property tax] cap in 1980 and the 1993 [state education policy] reform. In 1991, the state's Board of Education warned that there was "... a state of emergency created by grossly inadequate financial support of the public schools..." and that "[c]ertain classrooms simply warehoused children at this time, with no effective education being provided."
The CBPP goes on to find many flaws with the data and methodology of the Manhattan Institute. (To be fair, the CBPP is not without its critics on the right.) However, both reports seem to be indicating the same thing: the state policy reforms of 1993 are responsible for Massachusetts strong public education program, not the property tax cap of 1980.
But what is most devastating about both reports is the inescapable fact that from 1980 to 1993, public education was on a downward trajectory. So a Massachusetts student who entered the first grade in the fall of 1980 and graduated high school in the spring of 1993 spent his or her entire academic career in a failing public school system. That's an entire generation of students who have been poorly served.
Governor Christie wants to impost a property tax cap in New Jersey, but has yet to put forward a plan for maintaining the quality of education in our public schools in the face of a changed funding environment. In fact, all Governor Christie has put forward is a plan to send public school students and dollars to private schools.
So the outcome is clear. Cap 2.5, as currently proposed, will be a disaster for our schools.
In a publication entitled "Do Property-Tax Caps Work: Lessons For New Jersey From Massachusetts," the Manhattan Institute's Josh Barro writes that Massachusetts’s experience with capping property tax increases at 2.5% annually could significantly restrain tax growth without hurting educational outcomes in New Jersey. While the rate of increase in Massachusetts' property taxes has slowed significantly since the implementation of the cap, current educational test scores are slightly better than those in New Jersey.
Governor Christie was happy to present this study to the public as proof that New Jersey can cap property taxes without sacrificing excellence in education. However, the Governor failed to highlight one key fact. In an endnote to his report, Mr. Barro writes:
"Readers may be interested to know: If high spending does not explain Massachusetts’ unparalleled educational success, what does? A full answer is beyond the scope of this paper. But policy experts have pointed to a series of curriculum and testing reforms in the 1990s that appear to have significantly improved performance."
So, to be clear, property taxes were capped in 1980, but Massachusetts' educational success stems from curriculum and testing reforms enacted over a decade later. So what happened between the time property taxes were capped and educational reforms were enacted?
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has reviewed the Manhattan Institute's report and provided an answer to this question.
"Schools suffered in Massachusetts between the adoption of the [property tax] cap in 1980 and the 1993 [state education policy] reform. In 1991, the state's Board of Education warned that there was "... a state of emergency created by grossly inadequate financial support of the public schools..." and that "[c]ertain classrooms simply warehoused children at this time, with no effective education being provided."
The CBPP goes on to find many flaws with the data and methodology of the Manhattan Institute. (To be fair, the CBPP is not without its critics on the right.) However, both reports seem to be indicating the same thing: the state policy reforms of 1993 are responsible for Massachusetts strong public education program, not the property tax cap of 1980.
But what is most devastating about both reports is the inescapable fact that from 1980 to 1993, public education was on a downward trajectory. So a Massachusetts student who entered the first grade in the fall of 1980 and graduated high school in the spring of 1993 spent his or her entire academic career in a failing public school system. That's an entire generation of students who have been poorly served.
Governor Christie wants to impost a property tax cap in New Jersey, but has yet to put forward a plan for maintaining the quality of education in our public schools in the face of a changed funding environment. In fact, all Governor Christie has put forward is a plan to send public school students and dollars to private schools.
So the outcome is clear. Cap 2.5, as currently proposed, will be a disaster for our schools.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Quotes Of Note: The Oil Spill
1. Amid calls to establish new regulatory, safety and technical requirements for off-shore drilling, Jack Gerard, President of the American Petroleum Institute said "What's most important is that we get the facts before we move. We should not legislate in a vacuum based on speculation."
Mr. Gerard, the last time I checked there were 5,000 barrels of oil a day spilling into your vacuum. The only speculation going on here is by oil companies, which bet that the economic risk of cutting corners on safety would be offset by the value of the oil found.
The point, Mr. Gerard, is that oil companies should get the facts before they drill, because they are not drilling in a vacuum.
2. BP PLC Chief Executive Tony Hayward has accepted full responsibility for cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf of Texas and has said that BP will honor all legitimate claims for damages. Says BP spokesman Andrew Gowers, "When disasters like this occur, corporations can make things worse by appearing dilatory, obfuscatory or legalistic in their response."
Mr. Gowers, using words like "dilatory," "obfuscatory" and "legalistic" is the best way to make a company appear dilatory, obfuscatory and legalistic. But I have a question.
Mr. Hayward says BP will pay all "legitimate" claims. The lawyer in me senses some wiggle room.
Currently, BP's liability under law for damages from the spill are capped at $75 million. Efforts are being made to increase that cap to $10 billion. But why? If BP is going to pay all legitimate claims, why worry about the cap? Unless any damages claims in excess of $75 million in the aggregate will be deemed illegitimate by Mr. Hayward.
Or Maybe Mr. Hayward is just reserving his right to allow BPs corporate lawyers to force anyone seeking damages to engage on costly litigation in order to prove their claim is legitimate, forcing devastated business owners to weigh the cost of litigation against the damages sought.
From where I sit, neither Mr. Hayward or Mr. Gerard are doing a whole lot to improve the image of BP PLC. Why not just say "My bad, I'll clean it up, just send me the bill"? That's something everyone can understand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)