So there's a State budget in the legislature which has a $570 million hole in it. And no one in Trenton seems to care. Everyone intends to move this budget forward on the assumption that the money that isn't coming will eventually arrive. Call it the bi-partisan Tooth Fairy approach to budgeting.
Governor Christie does not want to raise the issue because:
1. After campaigning against balancing the budget on one-year fixes and other gimmicks, the Governor will have to admit that he used a one-time increase in Medicaid money to balance his budget;
2. While more than 30 states are in a similar situation, i.e., facing budget holes because of the failure of Congress to approve additional FMAP money, this Governor will be forced to admit that while he has been speaking in favor of forcing government to live within its means he has been willing to let the Federal government give New Jersey money borrowed from taxpayers in order to close New Jersey's budget deficit; and
3. The Governor is facing a mini-revolt within his own party because of the tax increases in this budget, and were he to admit to a $570 hole while pushing a budget that includes now-unfunded programs demanded by Democrats he may lose even more votes from within his own party.
New Jersey Democrats do not want to raise the issue because:
1. They do not want to jeopardize the funding for their pet programs they just got reinstated in the budget compromise with the Governor; and
2. When it turns out that this Governor's budget, voted for by every Republican in the Senate and Assembly, has a hole roughly equal to the amount of money the Millionaires Tax would have brought in, Democrats expect to make political hay.
And so it becomes apparent that there are two holes in Trenton. One is a $570 million hole in the budget. The other is the gaping distance between our government and the taxpayers.
The taxpayers want the budget done right. They don't care who is in and who is out, they don't care who is seeking national office, they just want their government to put the taxpayers first. And knowingly passing a budget that the State cannot afford is just bad government.
To the Republicans and Democrats in Trenton, a pox on both your houses. We taxpayers are ready to take our medicine and live within our means. Please put your personal ambitions and petty grievances aside and for once give us an honest budget we can afford.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
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.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Quote Of Note: The Governor Sends A Message
The New Jersey Chamber of Commerce is a pro-business lobby that has been advocating against government regulation and taxation since 1911. One would think that a pro-business lobby and a pro-business Governor would be natural allies.
At first blush, this seemed to be the case. Almost every Republican in the State who spoke in favor of allowing the Millionaires Tax to expire repeated information from the Chamber. The Chamber commissioned a Boston College study that has been widely cited as evidence that the Millionaires Tax caused New Jersey to lose $70 billion in wealth (in point of fact, the study found nothing of the kind, as discussed in an earlier posting).
However, there has been a sizable rift between the Chamber and the Governor since the Governor took office in January. The Governor felt that the Chamber in general, and Chamber President Joan Verplanck in particular, had distanced themselves from Christie during the campaign, essentially betting that Governor Corzine would win re-election. When Christie won, it was payback time.
So the Governor boycotted the Chamber’s annual train ride to Washington, D.C., an event which Governors past attended regularly. And Christie made it known to business leaders throughout the State that that he was unwilling to cooperate with the Chamber so long as Verplanck remained President. A post the 64 year old Verplanck has held for the past 15 years.
And so, yesterday, Verplanck announced her resignation.
State Senator Joseph Kyrillos, former chairman of Chris Christie’s gubernatorial campaign and now a key Christie advisor, is quoted as saying:
“The various groups have gotten the message that they need to be full partners in making New Jersey competitive again. The Chamber and all business groups in this State need to re-brand and reinvent themselves.”
So forcing the resignation of the long-standing President of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce was done to send a message. It’s not enough to agree with, support and promote the Governor’s agenda. You have to be a “full partner.”
When it comes to Chris Christie, either you’re in or you’re out. As George W. Bush once said, “Either you’re with us or agin us.” And that’s how Chris Christie treats his allies.
As I write this, certain Republicans in the Senate and Assembly are deciding whether or not to support the compromise budget the Governor and the Democrats have reached. Republican Senator Michael Warren has said he does not support the budget. Republican Assemblyman Patrick Carroll and Republican Assemblywoman Alison Little McHose have announced plans to vote against the budget. And the Governor needs every Republican legislator to vote for the budget in order for it to pass.
Those three Republicans may be joining Joan Verplanck at some local Trenton watering hole in the very near future ruing the day they ever dared cross Chris Christie.
Got the message?
At first blush, this seemed to be the case. Almost every Republican in the State who spoke in favor of allowing the Millionaires Tax to expire repeated information from the Chamber. The Chamber commissioned a Boston College study that has been widely cited as evidence that the Millionaires Tax caused New Jersey to lose $70 billion in wealth (in point of fact, the study found nothing of the kind, as discussed in an earlier posting).
However, there has been a sizable rift between the Chamber and the Governor since the Governor took office in January. The Governor felt that the Chamber in general, and Chamber President Joan Verplanck in particular, had distanced themselves from Christie during the campaign, essentially betting that Governor Corzine would win re-election. When Christie won, it was payback time.
So the Governor boycotted the Chamber’s annual train ride to Washington, D.C., an event which Governors past attended regularly. And Christie made it known to business leaders throughout the State that that he was unwilling to cooperate with the Chamber so long as Verplanck remained President. A post the 64 year old Verplanck has held for the past 15 years.
And so, yesterday, Verplanck announced her resignation.
State Senator Joseph Kyrillos, former chairman of Chris Christie’s gubernatorial campaign and now a key Christie advisor, is quoted as saying:
“The various groups have gotten the message that they need to be full partners in making New Jersey competitive again. The Chamber and all business groups in this State need to re-brand and reinvent themselves.”
So forcing the resignation of the long-standing President of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce was done to send a message. It’s not enough to agree with, support and promote the Governor’s agenda. You have to be a “full partner.”
When it comes to Chris Christie, either you’re in or you’re out. As George W. Bush once said, “Either you’re with us or agin us.” And that’s how Chris Christie treats his allies.
As I write this, certain Republicans in the Senate and Assembly are deciding whether or not to support the compromise budget the Governor and the Democrats have reached. Republican Senator Michael Warren has said he does not support the budget. Republican Assemblyman Patrick Carroll and Republican Assemblywoman Alison Little McHose have announced plans to vote against the budget. And the Governor needs every Republican legislator to vote for the budget in order for it to pass.
Those three Republicans may be joining Joan Verplanck at some local Trenton watering hole in the very near future ruing the day they ever dared cross Chris Christie.
Got the message?
Budget Nuggets
I’ve come across two interesting facts while reviewing the compromise budget now working its way through the State legislature.
First, the Governor has agreed to refrain from cutting the budget of the State Commission of Investigation.
According to the web site for the SCI:
"The State Commission of Investigation was established in 1968 as an independent fact-finding agency. Its mission is to identify and investigate organized crime, corruption and waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayers' dollars. The SCI is required by law to pursue these investigations beyond the sphere of political influence or favoritism. The law also requires the SCI's findings to be made public through written reports and/or public hearings."
The Governor had wanted to merge the SCI with the State Comptroller, the only government watchdog working under the jurisdiction of the executive branch. The Governor had also wanted to merge the Inspector General and the Medicaid Inspector General with the State Comptroller, effectively bringing all of the State’s investigative powers under one roof – his roof.
None of this should be surprising to those who have followed Chris Christie’s career. As a Federal prosecutor, Chris Christie served as an advisor to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Christie was privy to, if not actively involved in, the politicization of the Justice Department. In fact, in the final months of the 2006 campaign, US Attorney Christie brought an indictment against an anti-poverty agency with ties to Senator Robert Menendez, who was in a tight re-election campaign against Tom Kean, Jr. To date, that investigation remains open, although no charges have been brought.
So the concept of the Governor holding the purse strings of the State’s investigative powers, and controlling the paychecks of the investigators, was disconcerting, at best. This is a Governor who believes in using any and all means available, even means arguably not within his powers, to push forward his personal agenda.
But, for now, SCI is safe. And that’s a good thing.
The second fact to emerge from the compromise budget is that New Jersey Network, the public television station in New Jersey, will lose its State funding after December.
NJN serves a unique function. As New Jersey falls within both the Philadelphia and New York media markets, a great deal of the public broadcast programming available is geared to those states. NJN has a nightly newscast and weekly public events shows, as well as other programming, all geared towards events in New Jersey.
Currently, the State owns NJN. The idea of spinning off NJN into a private not-for-profit corporation is not a new one. In fact, it was originally proposed in 2008 by the people who run NJN. They seem to think that NJN will do better as a stand-alone entity.
Details remain to be worked out as to how the spin-off will occur. The State owns the physical assets of NJN, including broadcasting equipment. And there certainly is a scramble on to find alternative financing in the 6 months or so before the State stops providing funds.
But now more than ever, it is important that New Jersey have an independent media outlet focused on New Jersey stories. Otherwise, it would not be long before this Governor found a way to use NJN to advance his own agenda.
First, the Governor has agreed to refrain from cutting the budget of the State Commission of Investigation.
According to the web site for the SCI:
"The State Commission of Investigation was established in 1968 as an independent fact-finding agency. Its mission is to identify and investigate organized crime, corruption and waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayers' dollars. The SCI is required by law to pursue these investigations beyond the sphere of political influence or favoritism. The law also requires the SCI's findings to be made public through written reports and/or public hearings."
The Governor had wanted to merge the SCI with the State Comptroller, the only government watchdog working under the jurisdiction of the executive branch. The Governor had also wanted to merge the Inspector General and the Medicaid Inspector General with the State Comptroller, effectively bringing all of the State’s investigative powers under one roof – his roof.
None of this should be surprising to those who have followed Chris Christie’s career. As a Federal prosecutor, Chris Christie served as an advisor to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Christie was privy to, if not actively involved in, the politicization of the Justice Department. In fact, in the final months of the 2006 campaign, US Attorney Christie brought an indictment against an anti-poverty agency with ties to Senator Robert Menendez, who was in a tight re-election campaign against Tom Kean, Jr. To date, that investigation remains open, although no charges have been brought.
So the concept of the Governor holding the purse strings of the State’s investigative powers, and controlling the paychecks of the investigators, was disconcerting, at best. This is a Governor who believes in using any and all means available, even means arguably not within his powers, to push forward his personal agenda.
But, for now, SCI is safe. And that’s a good thing.
The second fact to emerge from the compromise budget is that New Jersey Network, the public television station in New Jersey, will lose its State funding after December.
NJN serves a unique function. As New Jersey falls within both the Philadelphia and New York media markets, a great deal of the public broadcast programming available is geared to those states. NJN has a nightly newscast and weekly public events shows, as well as other programming, all geared towards events in New Jersey.
Currently, the State owns NJN. The idea of spinning off NJN into a private not-for-profit corporation is not a new one. In fact, it was originally proposed in 2008 by the people who run NJN. They seem to think that NJN will do better as a stand-alone entity.
Details remain to be worked out as to how the spin-off will occur. The State owns the physical assets of NJN, including broadcasting equipment. And there certainly is a scramble on to find alternative financing in the 6 months or so before the State stops providing funds.
But now more than ever, it is important that New Jersey have an independent media outlet focused on New Jersey stories. Otherwise, it would not be long before this Governor found a way to use NJN to advance his own agenda.
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.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
To Merge Or Not To Merge
In recent weeks, there's a topic that has been broached by sources which don't usually agree on much. That topic is the unusually high number of school districts in New Jersey and the effect that fragmentation has on the State's property taxes. By one count, the State has 566 towns and 588 school districts.
Tuesday's Wall Street Journal ran a front page story about the different ways school districts across the country are managing budget shortfalls. The article focuses on Downe Township, New Jersey. Downe Township has a school district for students from preschool through eighth grade. There are 236 students in the district. For high school, the students travel to nearby towns.
This year's budget cuts will hit certain students the hardest -- kids who are not eligible for special education but still need extra help to keep up. Downe Township had been running a very successful remedial program after school, which will have to be cut. Also being cut are basic skills classes.
In its report which recommends against Cap 2.5, the Center for Budget Policy and Priorities highlights the high number of New Jersey school districts as a significant contributor to the State's high property taxes. CBPP finds that New Jersey's small school districts suffer from duplication of services and administrative structures, and weak bargaining power with unions and health care providers. CBPP also cites the high cost of sending special needs students out of district as a significant factor contributing to high property taxes, a situation which might be improved if districts combined their special education programs, if they do not combine outright. Interestingly, the CPBB finds that teacher salaries are not the cause of high property taxes; state policies and inefficiencies are the culprits.
And in a recent address in Perth Amboy, Governor Christie noted that Cap 2.5 might encourage smaller school districts to combine. When these inefficient school districts no longer have the option of raising property taxes, reasons the Governor, the districts may finally choose to share administrative, superintendent and business services.
The advantages of merging small New Jersey school districts may be one of the few ideas that has supporters on the right and on the left. That being said, the idea was so soundly trounced when Governor Corzine floated it that no one is willing to shout it from the rooftops. Yet.
Tuesday's Wall Street Journal ran a front page story about the different ways school districts across the country are managing budget shortfalls. The article focuses on Downe Township, New Jersey. Downe Township has a school district for students from preschool through eighth grade. There are 236 students in the district. For high school, the students travel to nearby towns.
This year's budget cuts will hit certain students the hardest -- kids who are not eligible for special education but still need extra help to keep up. Downe Township had been running a very successful remedial program after school, which will have to be cut. Also being cut are basic skills classes.
In its report which recommends against Cap 2.5, the Center for Budget Policy and Priorities highlights the high number of New Jersey school districts as a significant contributor to the State's high property taxes. CBPP finds that New Jersey's small school districts suffer from duplication of services and administrative structures, and weak bargaining power with unions and health care providers. CBPP also cites the high cost of sending special needs students out of district as a significant factor contributing to high property taxes, a situation which might be improved if districts combined their special education programs, if they do not combine outright. Interestingly, the CPBB finds that teacher salaries are not the cause of high property taxes; state policies and inefficiencies are the culprits.
And in a recent address in Perth Amboy, Governor Christie noted that Cap 2.5 might encourage smaller school districts to combine. When these inefficient school districts no longer have the option of raising property taxes, reasons the Governor, the districts may finally choose to share administrative, superintendent and business services.
The advantages of merging small New Jersey school districts may be one of the few ideas that has supporters on the right and on the left. That being said, the idea was so soundly trounced when Governor Corzine floated it that no one is willing to shout it from the rooftops. Yet.
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.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Bret Schundler Gets Schooled
Anyone following any New Jersey news media in recent weeks has had to have learned of the clash between Governor Christie and Education Commissioner Bret Schundler over the State's application for Race To The Top funds.
By way of background, Bret Schundler is a former mayor of Jersey City and a former Republican gubernatorial candidate. He was a champion of New Jersey's charter school law, and is widely viewed as a conservative Republican. At least conservative for New Jersey.
Earlier this year, New Jersey submitted an application for a share of the first round of Federal funds available under the Race To The Top program started by President Obama. The State got no money from that application, largely because the State had not secured the cooperation of the New Jersey Education Association.
Commissioner Schundler, in preparing the State's application for a share of the second round of Race To The Top funds, sought to find a compromise with the NJEA that would entice the union to sign on to the State's application. Because Commissioner Schundler thinks that getting Federal funds for education would be a good thing. And the commissioner did find a compromise. However, that compromise included an agreement by the State to withdraw its plans to compensate teachers on the basis of merit and its objection to tenure for teachers with seniority.
In his public disavowment of the deal and of the Commissioner, the Governor said that he was standing up for what he believed in and what he had campaigned on. In his view, teachers were making self-preservation more important than the kids, and the NJEA was protecting its own members at the expense of the State.
The entire episode reminded me of David Gregory's recent interview with Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota and something of a front-runner for the 2012 Republican nomination for President. Minnesota had a $3 billion budget shortfall in its current budget cycle, and the state legislature wanted to plug part of that hole by allowing Minnesotans to enroll in Medicaid a few years earlier than they otherwise would have under current law.
But Tim Pawlenty said "no." The Governor explained to David Gregory that, since Pawlenty does not believe in big government, it would have been dishonest of him to take that Federal money. So he turned down Federal funds and cut $1.9 billion from the state education budget. And while this 2-year budget was balanced, the next 2 year budget for Minnesota faces a $5.8 billion dollar budget gap.
So, how could Bret Schundler have gone so wrong? By ever believing that there was a compromise with the NJEA that Chris Christie would approve. The Governor does not want Race To The Top funds. He does not want anything that will help the NJEA avoid layoffs for its members, and he does not want anything that makes it possible for the State to meet its school funding obligations under Abbott vs. Burke.
No, what the Governor wants is to use educational policy as a weapon. By that I mean that, just has he did as an advisor to Alberto Gonzalez, the Governor uses every arm of his administration, and sets every policy, towards one goal -- remaking this State into a place where government is not responsible for providing a level playing field, where business is free to function without having its gains redistributed to the less wealthy and where public schools are free to fail.
What Bret Schundler, and quite frankly the rest of us, have to grasp is that these Governors, Christie and Pawlenty, and their far right ilk want to bankrupt the states, to starve the beast of government so that it is incapable of interfering in the marketplace. These guys are playing to a national audience, and are courting voters who will never have to clean up the mess these men leave in their wakes.
And on the national stage, Bret Schundler is no conservative. Compared to Chris Christie and Tim Pawlenty, Bret Schundler is Nancy Pelosi.
By way of background, Bret Schundler is a former mayor of Jersey City and a former Republican gubernatorial candidate. He was a champion of New Jersey's charter school law, and is widely viewed as a conservative Republican. At least conservative for New Jersey.
Earlier this year, New Jersey submitted an application for a share of the first round of Federal funds available under the Race To The Top program started by President Obama. The State got no money from that application, largely because the State had not secured the cooperation of the New Jersey Education Association.
Commissioner Schundler, in preparing the State's application for a share of the second round of Race To The Top funds, sought to find a compromise with the NJEA that would entice the union to sign on to the State's application. Because Commissioner Schundler thinks that getting Federal funds for education would be a good thing. And the commissioner did find a compromise. However, that compromise included an agreement by the State to withdraw its plans to compensate teachers on the basis of merit and its objection to tenure for teachers with seniority.
In his public disavowment of the deal and of the Commissioner, the Governor said that he was standing up for what he believed in and what he had campaigned on. In his view, teachers were making self-preservation more important than the kids, and the NJEA was protecting its own members at the expense of the State.
The entire episode reminded me of David Gregory's recent interview with Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota and something of a front-runner for the 2012 Republican nomination for President. Minnesota had a $3 billion budget shortfall in its current budget cycle, and the state legislature wanted to plug part of that hole by allowing Minnesotans to enroll in Medicaid a few years earlier than they otherwise would have under current law.
But Tim Pawlenty said "no." The Governor explained to David Gregory that, since Pawlenty does not believe in big government, it would have been dishonest of him to take that Federal money. So he turned down Federal funds and cut $1.9 billion from the state education budget. And while this 2-year budget was balanced, the next 2 year budget for Minnesota faces a $5.8 billion dollar budget gap.
So, how could Bret Schundler have gone so wrong? By ever believing that there was a compromise with the NJEA that Chris Christie would approve. The Governor does not want Race To The Top funds. He does not want anything that will help the NJEA avoid layoffs for its members, and he does not want anything that makes it possible for the State to meet its school funding obligations under Abbott vs. Burke.
No, what the Governor wants is to use educational policy as a weapon. By that I mean that, just has he did as an advisor to Alberto Gonzalez, the Governor uses every arm of his administration, and sets every policy, towards one goal -- remaking this State into a place where government is not responsible for providing a level playing field, where business is free to function without having its gains redistributed to the less wealthy and where public schools are free to fail.
What Bret Schundler, and quite frankly the rest of us, have to grasp is that these Governors, Christie and Pawlenty, and their far right ilk want to bankrupt the states, to starve the beast of government so that it is incapable of interfering in the marketplace. These guys are playing to a national audience, and are courting voters who will never have to clean up the mess these men leave in their wakes.
And on the national stage, Bret Schundler is no conservative. Compared to Chris Christie and Tim Pawlenty, Bret Schundler is Nancy Pelosi.
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.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Chris Christie Hates Judicial Independence
In a recent press conference, Governor Christie finally made clear why he decided to remove Justice John Wallace from the State Supreme Court. As reported by the Star Ledger, the Governor said the following last week in Robbinsville:
"If people wonder why I want to change the Supreme Court, it's because I don't have the flexibility to change the school funding formula."
What the Governor means is that he wants to get rid of the State education funding requirements imposed under Supreme Court decisions starting with Abbott vs. Burke.
Thus, the Governor has made clear that he does not value the independence of the judiciary, or agree that judges should be evaluated on their personal merits and not on the extent to which they agree with anyone's political priorities. Justice Wallace was removed for no other reason that to make room for someone who will overrule Abbott vs. Burke.
If there was any doubt about the Governor's antipathy towards an independent judiciary, he put it to rest when he said:
"They've taken the power out of the hands of the Legislature to make this judgment and out of the hands of the Governor, and the courts are making it. Well, that's wrong. If judges want to legislate, they should run for the Legislature. . . They're put there, and they believe they should stay there without any responsiveness to the people of the State."
In essence, the Governor is mocking judges for believing in both checks and balances and an independent judiciary. Which led the Star-Ledger to note that the Governor has revealed his hard-right agenda.
"If people wonder why I want to change the Supreme Court, it's because I don't have the flexibility to change the school funding formula."
What the Governor means is that he wants to get rid of the State education funding requirements imposed under Supreme Court decisions starting with Abbott vs. Burke.
Thus, the Governor has made clear that he does not value the independence of the judiciary, or agree that judges should be evaluated on their personal merits and not on the extent to which they agree with anyone's political priorities. Justice Wallace was removed for no other reason that to make room for someone who will overrule Abbott vs. Burke.
If there was any doubt about the Governor's antipathy towards an independent judiciary, he put it to rest when he said:
"They've taken the power out of the hands of the Legislature to make this judgment and out of the hands of the Governor, and the courts are making it. Well, that's wrong. If judges want to legislate, they should run for the Legislature. . . They're put there, and they believe they should stay there without any responsiveness to the people of the State."
In essence, the Governor is mocking judges for believing in both checks and balances and an independent judiciary. Which led the Star-Ledger to note that the Governor has revealed his hard-right agenda.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
It's The Checks and Balances, Stupid
In New Jersey, there are four State watchdogs. The Inspector General is an independent agency; the State Comptroller is part of the executive branch; the State Commission of Investigation is part of the legislative branch; and the Medicaid Inspector General is an independent agency within the Inspector General's office. Having independent investigators means that any branch of the government -- executive, legislative or judicial -- can be kept honest.
As part of his budget cutting program, Governor Christie wants to merge New Jersey's four watchdogs into one agency. And, not surprisingly, he wants all the inspectors combined with the State Comptroller in the executive branch. Since the State Comptroller is appointed by the Governor for a 6 year term, the Governor's plan means that the one person in charge of State investigations, former Federal prosecutor Matthew Boxer, will be answerable to the Governor when his 6 year term ends in 2012. Ask Justice Wallace -- I'm sorry, former Justice Wallace -- what that means for the future of checks and balances in State investigations.
For purposes of clarity, the Inspector General is also appointed by the Governor. However, once appointed, the Inspector General serves for the Governor's entire term. The current Inspector General, Mary Jane Cooper, has served in that capacity since originally appointed by acting Governor Codey.
Now, by operating of our State Constitution, New Jersey has the most powerful Governor in the nation. Our Governor has a line item veto, which the President does not have. But even the New Jersey Governor cannot eliminate the State Commission of Investigation. That's how important the office is viewed within the context of our Constitution. What the Governor CAN do is cut the funding to the State Commission of Investigation, which he has proposed doing. He wants the agency's budget cut by about 75%. There is no precedent for such a de-funding.
What makes this more than just a tale about cost-cutting and, perhaps, power-grabbing are certain facts from Governor Christie's tenure as U.S District Attorney. As a federal prosecutor, Chris Christie was one of seventeen Federal prosecutors who served as advisers to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. The United States Attorney General is supposed to be an independent entity. But under President Bush, advisor Karl Rove was charged with using every branch of government to further the political goals of the President and the Republican party. And so, the Attorney General became a political partisan.
Lawyers interviewing for jobs as Federal prosecutors were vetted for their political views. And Federal prosecutors were urged to bring indictments that would affect elections. Some prosecutors were forced to resign after refusing to bring such political prosecutions.
As a respected member of the now-politicized office of the Attorney General, U.S. Attorney Chris Christie brought an indictment against a North Jersey anti-poverty agency with ties to Senator Robert Menendez. At the time, Senator Menendez was in a close re-election battle against Republican Tom Keane, Jr., son of the popular former governor. The indictment was announced a few months before the election; to date, the indictment has resulted in no charges, but the District Attorney's office continues to refuse to clear Menendez' name.
Now, there is no agency charged with investigating Federal prosecutors for bringing prosecutions for political purposes. However, the Attorney General is answerable to Congress. Ultimately, Alberto Gonzalez was forced to resign under threat of being indicted for lying to Congress. Lying about firing federal prosecutors for not bringing political indictments.
Chris Christie was not an innocent bystander to the politicization of the United States Attorney General's office. As an influential advisor to Alberto Gonzalez, he was one of the architects. Against this backdrop, it's clear that his move to bring all State investigatory activities under the authority of the executive branch is part of a pattern, a long-standing pattern of harnessing investigative power for partisan purposes.
Governor Chris Christie has attacked the independence of the judiciary; he has superseded the legislature on a number of occasions, giving rise to several law suits; and now he seeks control of the State's investigatory powers. How long will it be before employees of the State Comptroller, both current and prospective, are vetted for party affiliation?
You can call this a lot of things, but don't pretend this is about balancing the State budget.
As part of his budget cutting program, Governor Christie wants to merge New Jersey's four watchdogs into one agency. And, not surprisingly, he wants all the inspectors combined with the State Comptroller in the executive branch. Since the State Comptroller is appointed by the Governor for a 6 year term, the Governor's plan means that the one person in charge of State investigations, former Federal prosecutor Matthew Boxer, will be answerable to the Governor when his 6 year term ends in 2012. Ask Justice Wallace -- I'm sorry, former Justice Wallace -- what that means for the future of checks and balances in State investigations.
For purposes of clarity, the Inspector General is also appointed by the Governor. However, once appointed, the Inspector General serves for the Governor's entire term. The current Inspector General, Mary Jane Cooper, has served in that capacity since originally appointed by acting Governor Codey.
Now, by operating of our State Constitution, New Jersey has the most powerful Governor in the nation. Our Governor has a line item veto, which the President does not have. But even the New Jersey Governor cannot eliminate the State Commission of Investigation. That's how important the office is viewed within the context of our Constitution. What the Governor CAN do is cut the funding to the State Commission of Investigation, which he has proposed doing. He wants the agency's budget cut by about 75%. There is no precedent for such a de-funding.
What makes this more than just a tale about cost-cutting and, perhaps, power-grabbing are certain facts from Governor Christie's tenure as U.S District Attorney. As a federal prosecutor, Chris Christie was one of seventeen Federal prosecutors who served as advisers to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. The United States Attorney General is supposed to be an independent entity. But under President Bush, advisor Karl Rove was charged with using every branch of government to further the political goals of the President and the Republican party. And so, the Attorney General became a political partisan.
Lawyers interviewing for jobs as Federal prosecutors were vetted for their political views. And Federal prosecutors were urged to bring indictments that would affect elections. Some prosecutors were forced to resign after refusing to bring such political prosecutions.
As a respected member of the now-politicized office of the Attorney General, U.S. Attorney Chris Christie brought an indictment against a North Jersey anti-poverty agency with ties to Senator Robert Menendez. At the time, Senator Menendez was in a close re-election battle against Republican Tom Keane, Jr., son of the popular former governor. The indictment was announced a few months before the election; to date, the indictment has resulted in no charges, but the District Attorney's office continues to refuse to clear Menendez' name.
Now, there is no agency charged with investigating Federal prosecutors for bringing prosecutions for political purposes. However, the Attorney General is answerable to Congress. Ultimately, Alberto Gonzalez was forced to resign under threat of being indicted for lying to Congress. Lying about firing federal prosecutors for not bringing political indictments.
Chris Christie was not an innocent bystander to the politicization of the United States Attorney General's office. As an influential advisor to Alberto Gonzalez, he was one of the architects. Against this backdrop, it's clear that his move to bring all State investigatory activities under the authority of the executive branch is part of a pattern, a long-standing pattern of harnessing investigative power for partisan purposes.
Governor Chris Christie has attacked the independence of the judiciary; he has superseded the legislature on a number of occasions, giving rise to several law suits; and now he seeks control of the State's investigatory powers. How long will it be before employees of the State Comptroller, both current and prospective, are vetted for party affiliation?
You can call this a lot of things, but don't pretend this is about balancing the State budget.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Meet Tim Pawlenty
David Gregory has an hour-long interview with Tim Pawlenty as part of his Meet The Press Across America series. Highlights are:
1. His repeated statement that he supports K-12 education, followed by his explanation that the reason Minnesota will have a $3 billion deficit in its next 2-year budget cycle is because the Democrats in the legislature would not make his $1.9 billion in cuts to education permanent.
2. His statement that he would propose converting Medicaid into a block grant to states, capping the Federal government's obligation. But he would increase funding for patrolling the border.
Follow this link for a preview of things to come.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/37408321#37408321
1. His repeated statement that he supports K-12 education, followed by his explanation that the reason Minnesota will have a $3 billion deficit in its next 2-year budget cycle is because the Democrats in the legislature would not make his $1.9 billion in cuts to education permanent.
2. His statement that he would propose converting Medicaid into a block grant to states, capping the Federal government's obligation. But he would increase funding for patrolling the border.
Follow this link for a preview of things to come.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/37408321#37408321
Return of the Unitary Executive
NJ Spotlight reports that the Perth Amboy school district has filed a lawsuit claiming that Governor Christie has exceeded his powers as Governor. By executive order, the Governor withheld $475 million in state aid payments to schools across New Jersey. Perth Amboy, which lost $15 million as a result, claims that the Governor illegally superseded a statute duly passed by the legislature.
This is at least the third lawsuit alleging Governor Christie is acting beyond his Constitutional mandate. When Governor Christie sought to hold labor unions to the same campaign finance limits as businesses, the unions sued. When the Governor re-wrote collective bargaining agreements with public unions to require public employees to contribute to their health care, the unions sued again,
It reminds me of Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota being sued for "unallotting" items in the State's budget approved by the legislature. But even more so, it reminds me of Dick Cheney and the theory of the unitary executive.
Under the Federal Constitution, the President is vested with executive power. Unitary executive theory holds that this exclusive vesting gives the President the sole power to set policy. In its most extreme version, unitary executive theory holds that neither the judiciary nor the Congress can exert any power over the President, especially on national security matters.
At heart the unitary executive theory is an argument in favor of a government led by a strong father figure, a disciplinarian. Its proponents would take us back to the era before Watergate when a President was above question and above the law. Because what this country needs is to stop all this political correctness nonsense, end this obsessive questioning of authority and get done what needs to get done (in the view of those who know better)..
And then it hits me. Chris Christie is trying to be a unitary executive for New Jersey. By that I mean a chiding disciplinarian who is going to overrule the legislature, intimidate the judiciary, shut down the programs for the poor that the State cannot afford, break the backs of the unions that have gotten to big for their own good and return us to an era when the State was not responsible for creating a level playing field in any arena.
So it's not that the budget crisis is causing Chris Christie to shrink the size of government. No, just as George Bush used 9/11 as political cover for a long-standing neo-conservative agenda which included starting a war with Iraq; and just as Barack Obama used the financial meltdown as a justification for a long-standing liberal proposal for a national health care plan; Chris Christie is using our State's budget crisis to push a far right agenda that would never be acceptable to New Jerseyans under normal circumstances.
This is at least the third lawsuit alleging Governor Christie is acting beyond his Constitutional mandate. When Governor Christie sought to hold labor unions to the same campaign finance limits as businesses, the unions sued. When the Governor re-wrote collective bargaining agreements with public unions to require public employees to contribute to their health care, the unions sued again,
It reminds me of Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota being sued for "unallotting" items in the State's budget approved by the legislature. But even more so, it reminds me of Dick Cheney and the theory of the unitary executive.
Under the Federal Constitution, the President is vested with executive power. Unitary executive theory holds that this exclusive vesting gives the President the sole power to set policy. In its most extreme version, unitary executive theory holds that neither the judiciary nor the Congress can exert any power over the President, especially on national security matters.
At heart the unitary executive theory is an argument in favor of a government led by a strong father figure, a disciplinarian. Its proponents would take us back to the era before Watergate when a President was above question and above the law. Because what this country needs is to stop all this political correctness nonsense, end this obsessive questioning of authority and get done what needs to get done (in the view of those who know better)..
And then it hits me. Chris Christie is trying to be a unitary executive for New Jersey. By that I mean a chiding disciplinarian who is going to overrule the legislature, intimidate the judiciary, shut down the programs for the poor that the State cannot afford, break the backs of the unions that have gotten to big for their own good and return us to an era when the State was not responsible for creating a level playing field in any arena.
So it's not that the budget crisis is causing Chris Christie to shrink the size of government. No, just as George Bush used 9/11 as political cover for a long-standing neo-conservative agenda which included starting a war with Iraq; and just as Barack Obama used the financial meltdown as a justification for a long-standing liberal proposal for a national health care plan; Chris Christie is using our State's budget crisis to push a far right agenda that would never be acceptable to New Jerseyans under normal circumstances.
Friday, May 28, 2010
It's The Economy, Stupid!
I keep hearing from Republicans that rich people are fleeing New Jersey because of our high taxes. And I've been curious about the basis of this claim.
It turns out that The New Jersey Chamber of Commerce commissioned a study by the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College; that study examined the net wealth of New Jersey from 1998 to 2008. According to the study, between 1998 and 2003, there was a net gain in State wealth of $98 billion; and between 2004 and 2008, there was a net loss of $70 billion.
Chamber of Commerce chairman Dennis Bone says the study shows that higher taxes on high earners are driving high earners out of the State.
I still don't get it
First, I have to point out that this study was commissioned by The New Jersey Chamber of Commerce. Is it really any surprise that the Chamber is interpreting this study as stating that taxes are too high? I'm willing to bet that if the Chamber read my tea leaves, the Chamber would say that the clear meaning is that taxes are too high.
Second, the study looked at wealth, not income. Wealth is the value of assets net of debt at any given time, according to the study. So, when we evaluate the increase in wealth moving to New Jersey from New York during the housing bubble, do we factor in that people were selling their million dollar one-bedroom condos to buy 6 bedroom houses? And when we evaluate the loss of wealth of New Jersey residents during the Great Recession, do we consider that tax laws were not the outcome determinative factor in most financial decisions being made at that time?
The study does acknowledge that some of the migration trends in New Jersey appear to be part of a trend affecting New York and Connecticut, and in some instances the entire Northeast. And the study actually concludes that New Jersey is losing wealth more because of a decline in wealthy families moving in-state than from an increase in wealthy families moving out of state.
So, it seems that the Chamber of Commerce is stretching the truth, to put it mildly, when it says that wealthy households are leaving the State because of our taxes.
Now if we could just get the Democrats to say that the Governor has no clothes when he repeats this specious claim, the citizens of this State might have some hope of an intelligent dialogue on taxes and budgets.
It turns out that The New Jersey Chamber of Commerce commissioned a study by the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College; that study examined the net wealth of New Jersey from 1998 to 2008. According to the study, between 1998 and 2003, there was a net gain in State wealth of $98 billion; and between 2004 and 2008, there was a net loss of $70 billion.
Chamber of Commerce chairman Dennis Bone says the study shows that higher taxes on high earners are driving high earners out of the State.
I still don't get it
First, I have to point out that this study was commissioned by The New Jersey Chamber of Commerce. Is it really any surprise that the Chamber is interpreting this study as stating that taxes are too high? I'm willing to bet that if the Chamber read my tea leaves, the Chamber would say that the clear meaning is that taxes are too high.
Second, the study looked at wealth, not income. Wealth is the value of assets net of debt at any given time, according to the study. So, when we evaluate the increase in wealth moving to New Jersey from New York during the housing bubble, do we factor in that people were selling their million dollar one-bedroom condos to buy 6 bedroom houses? And when we evaluate the loss of wealth of New Jersey residents during the Great Recession, do we consider that tax laws were not the outcome determinative factor in most financial decisions being made at that time?
The study does acknowledge that some of the migration trends in New Jersey appear to be part of a trend affecting New York and Connecticut, and in some instances the entire Northeast. And the study actually concludes that New Jersey is losing wealth more because of a decline in wealthy families moving in-state than from an increase in wealthy families moving out of state.
So, it seems that the Chamber of Commerce is stretching the truth, to put it mildly, when it says that wealthy households are leaving the State because of our taxes.
Now if we could just get the Democrats to say that the Governor has no clothes when he repeats this specious claim, the citizens of this State might have some hope of an intelligent dialogue on taxes and budgets.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Chris Christie Hearts Obamacare
Two news stories caught my eye recently. One discussed how the Governor is cutting $5.5 million in State aid to school nutrition programs. The other discussed how the Governor is restoring $55.5 million in proposed budget cuts to prescription drug assistance programs for seniors. And I'm wondering why these two programs are being treated differently by our Governor.
Both budget cuts seem to be part and parcel of the Governor's overall agenda to shrink the size of government. Sure, I could make some point about how the nutrition program will disparately impact poor school districts where the schools are already struggling, and is probably another salvo in the Governor's war to privatize public schools. And that the prescription drug benefit goes to seniors who vote in higher numbers than the general population.
But in the end, I think this is just a story about political opportunism. Democrats in the Senate and Assembly said they would pass a millionaires' tax to pay for the prescription drug benefit. So the Governor restored the prescription drug benefit as a pre-cursor to vetoing the millionaires' tax. And since there was no political benefit to either the Democrats or the Republicans in haggling over the nutrition program, out it went.
But buried in the fine print of the Governor's plan to restore seniors' prescription drug benefits is an interesting fact. The Governor claims to finance the $55.5 million prescription drug benefit with $13 million in drug-rebate programs, $10.4 million in savings by greater use of generic drugs, $22.8 million in savings the State will realize as a result of expanded eligibility for federal health care programs, and $9.3 million in savings from a Medicare change.
Meaning -- wait for it -- Obamacare is providing about $32 million of the $55.5 million the Governor has cobbled together.
Why the Democrats won't highlight the fact that our small-government Governor is taking advantage of the very type of government expansion he has sworn to fight simply escapes me. What better evidence could you ask for that smaller government is not a panacea? What better evidence could you ask for that the Governor is vulnerable, that his philosophical purity goes right out the window when he has the chance to reward his benefactors with lower taxes?
For some reason, the only statement reported was Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver promising to raise taxes. And I'm sure Ms. Oliver sits up nights wondering how we got a Republican Governor in this blue state.
Both budget cuts seem to be part and parcel of the Governor's overall agenda to shrink the size of government. Sure, I could make some point about how the nutrition program will disparately impact poor school districts where the schools are already struggling, and is probably another salvo in the Governor's war to privatize public schools. And that the prescription drug benefit goes to seniors who vote in higher numbers than the general population.
But in the end, I think this is just a story about political opportunism. Democrats in the Senate and Assembly said they would pass a millionaires' tax to pay for the prescription drug benefit. So the Governor restored the prescription drug benefit as a pre-cursor to vetoing the millionaires' tax. And since there was no political benefit to either the Democrats or the Republicans in haggling over the nutrition program, out it went.
But buried in the fine print of the Governor's plan to restore seniors' prescription drug benefits is an interesting fact. The Governor claims to finance the $55.5 million prescription drug benefit with $13 million in drug-rebate programs, $10.4 million in savings by greater use of generic drugs, $22.8 million in savings the State will realize as a result of expanded eligibility for federal health care programs, and $9.3 million in savings from a Medicare change.
Meaning -- wait for it -- Obamacare is providing about $32 million of the $55.5 million the Governor has cobbled together.
Why the Democrats won't highlight the fact that our small-government Governor is taking advantage of the very type of government expansion he has sworn to fight simply escapes me. What better evidence could you ask for that smaller government is not a panacea? What better evidence could you ask for that the Governor is vulnerable, that his philosophical purity goes right out the window when he has the chance to reward his benefactors with lower taxes?
For some reason, the only statement reported was Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver promising to raise taxes. And I'm sure Ms. Oliver sits up nights wondering how we got a Republican Governor in this blue state.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Small Government In Action
Today's Wall Street Journal ran a piece on the explosion at the Upper Big Branch mine operated by Massey Energy Company in West Virgina.
The article discusses how the mine circumvented inspections by the Mine Safety and Health Administration. MSHA inspections were only conducted during the day, so miners who worked other shifts did not benefit from those inspections. And when MSHA inspectors came onto the property, the words "we've got a man on the property" were radioed throughout the mine so that evidence of safety violations could be hidden.
And what were those safety violations? Massey had illegal mine evacuation procedures and regularly failed to hang ventilation curtains or conduct any safety operations that interfered with or delayed the production of coal, all despite the fact that the mine was filled with a high level of explosive methane gas.
Steve Morgan, whose 21 year old son Adam died in the explosion, tells a particularly painful story. His son was an apprentice, but was required to work alone, in violation of federal safety laws. Adam was sent home a week before the blast because of high gas levels. And when Adam complained, his boss suggested that perhaps Adam was in the wrong line of work.
So don't call this explosion an accident. It was an inevitability caused by corporate greed and government ineptitude.
This is what small government looks like
So here in New Jersey, home to many chemical labs and food processing plants, we need to think very, very carefully before we decide that we want a smaller government.
The article discusses how the mine circumvented inspections by the Mine Safety and Health Administration. MSHA inspections were only conducted during the day, so miners who worked other shifts did not benefit from those inspections. And when MSHA inspectors came onto the property, the words "we've got a man on the property" were radioed throughout the mine so that evidence of safety violations could be hidden.
And what were those safety violations? Massey had illegal mine evacuation procedures and regularly failed to hang ventilation curtains or conduct any safety operations that interfered with or delayed the production of coal, all despite the fact that the mine was filled with a high level of explosive methane gas.
Steve Morgan, whose 21 year old son Adam died in the explosion, tells a particularly painful story. His son was an apprentice, but was required to work alone, in violation of federal safety laws. Adam was sent home a week before the blast because of high gas levels. And when Adam complained, his boss suggested that perhaps Adam was in the wrong line of work.
So don't call this explosion an accident. It was an inevitability caused by corporate greed and government ineptitude.
This is what small government looks like
So here in New Jersey, home to many chemical labs and food processing plants, we need to think very, very carefully before we decide that we want a smaller government.
Quote Of Note: Rand Paul's Boot Is Not Walking Away Anytime Soon
The Wall Street Journal quotes Interior Secretary Ken Salazar as saying that the US government will keep it's boot on BP's neck until the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is cleaned up.
Too bad that all that Mr. Salazar seems to have taken from Rand Paul is a sound bite. I'd much prefer it if the Secretary would say what he means and mean what he says, the way Mr. Paul does. And talk about the issues, like the Federal government's responsibility for the oil spill.
Please, Mr. Salazar, the environment is polluted enough, just do your job better.
Too bad that all that Mr. Salazar seems to have taken from Rand Paul is a sound bite. I'd much prefer it if the Secretary would say what he means and mean what he says, the way Mr. Paul does. And talk about the issues, like the Federal government's responsibility for the oil spill.
Please, Mr. Salazar, the environment is polluted enough, just do your job better.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Quotes Of Note: Chris Christie to the Rescue
The editorial page of today's Wall Street Journal ran a piece entitled "Born To Veto" which states, in relevant part: "Mr. Christie continues to stand out as a lone voice of economic sanity in Trenton and as a national fiscal leader, we hope taxpayers rally around him."
Make no mistake. What happens in New Jersey in the next 2 years and 4 years is of national significance. And unless the taxpayers of this State rally against Chris Christie and his tea party policies that bankrupt public schools, demonize public employee unions, hand tax breaks to the rich and give welfare to corporations, we will have no one to blame but ourselves when the Pawlenty-Christie show goes national.
Wake up and be heard.
Make no mistake. What happens in New Jersey in the next 2 years and 4 years is of national significance. And unless the taxpayers of this State rally against Chris Christie and his tea party policies that bankrupt public schools, demonize public employee unions, hand tax breaks to the rich and give welfare to corporations, we will have no one to blame but ourselves when the Pawlenty-Christie show goes national.
Wake up and be heard.
It's A Rand New Day
In the "be careful what you wish for" category, Rand Paul is now the Republican candidate for Senate in Kentucky.
First, let me say that I like Rand Paul. I like people who mean what they say and say what they mean. Rand Paul strikes me as a thoughtful and sincere man of conviction, I don't need to agree with him to respect him. For that matter, I have a lot more respect for him than I do for Paul Begala and the DSCC, from whom I received a fundraising letter telling me that all I need to know about Rand Paul is that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin love him.
As you would expect from anyone named after Ayn Rand, Rand Paul is a libertarian. He believes in a very limited role for government. And since his nomination he has said a couple of things that have gotten a lot of attention.
First, he has said that the Federal government should not be involved in requiring small businesses to conduct their affairs in a non-discriminatory manner. He believes in the Civil Rights Act, he believes in the vision of Dr. Martin Luther King, and while he believes the government does have a role in eliminating institutional racism he does not think that it is government's role to meddle in the affairs of private business.
Truth be told, I'm not sure why this has gotten so much attention. This is pretty much libertarianism 101. But my guess is that race is a very big issue in the tea party movement; that the press has been aching to talk about the racist overtones of the "Take back our country" mantra of the tea party (i.e., take back our country from that black guy those liberals elected); and that Rand Paul has opened the door for this discussion by publicly speaking about civil rights.
I do not believe that Rand Paul is a racist. I take him at his word that he believes that the Federal government should play a limited role. Just as I believe that the Federal government should play a more expansive role. I think the Federal government should make sure that every American has the same access to the same privileges. Which means a woman in any state should be able to get an abortion if that is her choice; that a person of any color or sexual orientation should be able to walk into any business establishment anywhere in the country and get the same level of service; and that all children should have access to the same quality education. I believe government should level the playing field and Rand Paul believes that the marketplace should level the playing field.
As I was thinking about Mr. Paul's views, I found myself wondering what his views were on the oil leak fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico. He wants business to operate free from government interference to the greatest extent possible; but here is a business that has created a huge problem. Mr. Paul was quoted as saying that he had heard nothing from BP to indicate that it wouldn't pay for the spill; and that he thought President Obama was putting his boot heel to the neck of BP.
Says Mr. Paul: "And I think it's part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it's always got to be somebody's fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen. . . .We had a mining accident that was very tragic. . . .Then we come in and it's always somebody's fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen."
Here, now, I do start to lose a little respect for Mr. Paul's position. First, he's talking about BP as if it's a person with a neck. And describing the President as using his boot heel as a weapon has a totalitarian connotation -- a suggestion of the merger of the military and the state. Military dictators use their boot heels the way Mr. Paul describes President Obama's actions. OK, fine, I'll say it, it sounds like a reference to the black power movement of the 60s and 70s. It's just an unfortunate word choice.
Second, as I tell my 6 year old daughter, accidents are when something unexpected happens. But when you are doing something you are not supposed to be doing and something bad happens, that's not an accident, that's an inevitability. So when you are operating a mine and you refuse to follow safety suggestions from people whose job it is to keep mines safe, and then the mine explodes, that's not an accident. And when you operate an off-shore drill assembly and you fail to properly close off an undersea oil well and you use faulty fail-safe equipment without properly testing it and you use a chemical to clean up the mess that is too toxic and inefficient and the result is the biggest environmental mishap in the history of the country, that's not an accident.
But most importantly is this belief that somehow BP is going to pay for the destruction of an ecosystem. Like you can buy an ecosystem. Ecosystems are not bought and sold; they are created and destroyed.
And still, I have to say I respect Rand Paul. I disagree with him fundamentally on the proper role of government, I think he is blessed with a lead tongue on racial issues, but I respect the hell out of his honesty and straightforwardness. What you see (and hear) is what you get. I wish more politicians were like that.
So, here in New Jersey, what can we learn from Rand Paul? That when our Governor says he is going to shrink government, he's really talking about getting government off the necks of businesses so they will be free to make mistakes that they cannot fix. That he is going to stop the State from leveling the playing field. And that he is going to make us all free to fail.
First, let me say that I like Rand Paul. I like people who mean what they say and say what they mean. Rand Paul strikes me as a thoughtful and sincere man of conviction, I don't need to agree with him to respect him. For that matter, I have a lot more respect for him than I do for Paul Begala and the DSCC, from whom I received a fundraising letter telling me that all I need to know about Rand Paul is that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin love him.
As you would expect from anyone named after Ayn Rand, Rand Paul is a libertarian. He believes in a very limited role for government. And since his nomination he has said a couple of things that have gotten a lot of attention.
First, he has said that the Federal government should not be involved in requiring small businesses to conduct their affairs in a non-discriminatory manner. He believes in the Civil Rights Act, he believes in the vision of Dr. Martin Luther King, and while he believes the government does have a role in eliminating institutional racism he does not think that it is government's role to meddle in the affairs of private business.
Truth be told, I'm not sure why this has gotten so much attention. This is pretty much libertarianism 101. But my guess is that race is a very big issue in the tea party movement; that the press has been aching to talk about the racist overtones of the "Take back our country" mantra of the tea party (i.e., take back our country from that black guy those liberals elected); and that Rand Paul has opened the door for this discussion by publicly speaking about civil rights.
I do not believe that Rand Paul is a racist. I take him at his word that he believes that the Federal government should play a limited role. Just as I believe that the Federal government should play a more expansive role. I think the Federal government should make sure that every American has the same access to the same privileges. Which means a woman in any state should be able to get an abortion if that is her choice; that a person of any color or sexual orientation should be able to walk into any business establishment anywhere in the country and get the same level of service; and that all children should have access to the same quality education. I believe government should level the playing field and Rand Paul believes that the marketplace should level the playing field.
As I was thinking about Mr. Paul's views, I found myself wondering what his views were on the oil leak fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico. He wants business to operate free from government interference to the greatest extent possible; but here is a business that has created a huge problem. Mr. Paul was quoted as saying that he had heard nothing from BP to indicate that it wouldn't pay for the spill; and that he thought President Obama was putting his boot heel to the neck of BP.
Says Mr. Paul: "And I think it's part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it's always got to be somebody's fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen. . . .We had a mining accident that was very tragic. . . .Then we come in and it's always somebody's fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen."
Here, now, I do start to lose a little respect for Mr. Paul's position. First, he's talking about BP as if it's a person with a neck. And describing the President as using his boot heel as a weapon has a totalitarian connotation -- a suggestion of the merger of the military and the state. Military dictators use their boot heels the way Mr. Paul describes President Obama's actions. OK, fine, I'll say it, it sounds like a reference to the black power movement of the 60s and 70s. It's just an unfortunate word choice.
Second, as I tell my 6 year old daughter, accidents are when something unexpected happens. But when you are doing something you are not supposed to be doing and something bad happens, that's not an accident, that's an inevitability. So when you are operating a mine and you refuse to follow safety suggestions from people whose job it is to keep mines safe, and then the mine explodes, that's not an accident. And when you operate an off-shore drill assembly and you fail to properly close off an undersea oil well and you use faulty fail-safe equipment without properly testing it and you use a chemical to clean up the mess that is too toxic and inefficient and the result is the biggest environmental mishap in the history of the country, that's not an accident.
But most importantly is this belief that somehow BP is going to pay for the destruction of an ecosystem. Like you can buy an ecosystem. Ecosystems are not bought and sold; they are created and destroyed.
And still, I have to say I respect Rand Paul. I disagree with him fundamentally on the proper role of government, I think he is blessed with a lead tongue on racial issues, but I respect the hell out of his honesty and straightforwardness. What you see (and hear) is what you get. I wish more politicians were like that.
So, here in New Jersey, what can we learn from Rand Paul? That when our Governor says he is going to shrink government, he's really talking about getting government off the necks of businesses so they will be free to make mistakes that they cannot fix. That he is going to stop the State from leveling the playing field. And that he is going to make us all free to fail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)