One NJ Releases 1st Television Commercial Highlighting the Real Story Behind Christie's Record

Fact: NJ Is Falling Further Behind

(NEW JERSEY) – Tomorrow, One New Jersey is going up with its first television commercial to help people learn about the real story in New Jersey. The spot will run as a six-figure, state-wide cable buy for the next few weeks, and is being supplemented by a robust online ad buy.



“Governor Christie touted a Jersey Comeback. But, contrary to his claims, we’re clearly falling behind,” said Joshua Henne, spokesman for One New Jersey. "Our first commercial seeks to serve as a wake-up call to Trenton that there’s a huge gulf between the rhetoric being espoused and the reality on the ground. The sad truth is that New Jersey is falling further and further back due to the wrong-headed policies and misplaced priorities of the past few years. No amount of hype or hyperbole can hide the fact that middle-class and working families are hurting, while millionaires and powerful interests get special treatment – and New Jersey ends up worse-off, as a result.”

The facts speak for themselves. Over the past few years, New Jersey has consistently trailed the rest of America when it comes to jobs. In fact, under Christie and his policies, the state’s unemployment rate reached its widest distance from the national average since the 1970s. Right now, New Jersey has the country’s 7th highest unemployment and is the worst state in the region when it comes to joblessness.

While Christie's policies have surely warmed the hearts of right-wing think tanks, they've had a chilling effect on New Jersey's families. Protecting tax cuts for multi-millionaires, but vetoing an increase to the minimum wage reveals a backwards set of priorities. Property taxes skyrocketed some 20% on Christie’s watch, while services are slashed. Fiscal pain is pushed along to municipalities, while local residents are paying more and receiving less from local government. New Jersey also became home to the 2nd highest percentage of mortgage loans in foreclosure in America, even though rates nationally are falling to their lowest levels since 2008.

Since launching in the Summer of 2011, One New Jersey consistently shines a light on those policies striking against the best interests of New Jersey residents. One New Jersey is also exposing efforts to divide the state and its people for political gain. Along those lines, One New Jersey has written op-eds and offered commentary on a whole host of issues - including economic failures, broken promises on jobs, regressive policies and New Jersey’s chronic unemployment. A true “Jersey Comeback” would, indeed, be a great thing. Unfortunately, that’s not the real story, as the facts prove otherwise.

*************************
One New Jersey is an independent 501(c) 4 advocacy organization that monitors policy positions and actions of elected officials and brings to light their records on the issues that matter to New Jersey’s middle-class and working families. You can follow @OneNJ on Twitter and search for “One New Jersey” on Facebook.

TO CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES ANNA LITTLE AND CHRIS SMITH...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

The following is a release from Monmouth County Democratic Chairman Vin Gopal on behalf of Congressman Frank Pallone Jr. (Monmouth-6) and Brian Froelich (Monmouth-4) - Democratic Candidates for US Congress in Monmouth County:

"This week, Joe Kyrillos broke from the Republican Party’s stalwart position against raising any taxes, even on the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations in America. However, when the GOP establishment attacked his stance, Joe Kyrillos quickly backtracked. This incident does raise an important question that effects all NJ voters – where does our the Republican Senate Candidate stand on the issue of tax fairness and where do the Republican Members of Congress and candidates stand on this issue. New Jersey Democrats have consistently been leaders on this issue, pushing for a millionaires tax that would ask everyone to pay their fair share.

  Now is the time to ask these Republicans where they stand – do they stand with the Joe Kyrillos who has spent over 2 decades in Trenton protecting the wealthy at the expense of New Jersey’s working families and opposed the Millionaires tax? Or do they stand with the Joe Kyrillos who seems to only have existed only for one newspaper report and realized that he was on the wrong side of NJ families in his repeatedly demonstrated opposition to a millionaires tax."

Christie Returns to the Scene of the Lie

For Immediate Release:
Friday, June 8th, 2012


Will Christie Answer For Failure to Bring Promised Jobs From Illinois During his Latest Romney Audition

(NEW JERSEY) - With Chris Christie in Illinois today to continue auditioning for Mitt Romney, will he take the time to put aside politicking at the Conservative Political Action Conference to follow-up on the jobs he promised to bring to New Jersey over 16 months ago?

In January 2011, Christie took a trip to Chicago on the heels of a major taxpayer-funded public relations blitz to lure jobs from Illinois to New Jersey. His administration spent over $300,000 in taxpayer dollars on glossy magazine advertisements and radio spots starring Christie himself. Newspaper ads ran up and down the state encouraging businesses to pick up stakes and relocate to the Garden State. Christie deemed the trip an immediate success and claimed to have met with some 18 various business leaders - one of whom apparently told him they were "sold" on moving to New Jersey. Yet, 16 months later the reliably mouthy governor is tight-lipped about the end outcome of his much-ballyhooed trip to poach jobs from the Prairie State.

Today - as Christie returns to the scene of the lie - it is more imperative than ever to answer the question: "Where are the jobs Christie promised from Illinois?" With a penchant for finger-pointing and name-calling, it is Christie who must be held accountable for broken promises and failures that fly in the face of his laughable "Jersey Comeback" - especially when it comes to jobs.

Month in and out, New Jersey continues to consistently trail the rest of America when it comes to unemployment. Throughout Christie's entire tenure, New Jersey's employment rate has hovered at 9% or higher. And this week, it came to light that New Jersey ranks 47th in economic performance and that the state's economy shrank .5% last year - even as 43 other states enjoyed economic growth.

As more and more bad statistics trickle out, those who live in New Jersey know that Christie's claims of a "Jersey Comeback" are pure myth. The state now has the 2nd highest percentage of mortgage loans in foreclosure in the nation. This number continues to spike as rates nationally have fallen to the lowest levels since 2008. Since 2009, New Jersey's homeless population rose 7% and food stamp usage is up 23.2%.

New Jersey is looking at a revenue shortfall anywhere from Christie's rosy projection of $600 million to the non-partisan Office of Legislative Services estimate of nearly $1.4 billion. Just this week, OLS reported revenues are likely to fall another $50-$100 million below earlier forecasts. Nonetheless, Christie doubled down on his pledge to veto a millionaire's tax, while still moving ahead with his plans to borrow money to finance a tax cut to the wealthy.

Rather than hobnobbing with national right-wing radicals in a bid to audition for Romney's VP slot, Christie instead should be in Illinois following up on his promise to bring jobs to New Jersey. Once again, Christie cares more about speaking to a fawning out-of-state audience than focusing on making life better for New Jersey's middle-class. Apparently, Christie is already on message with Romney. Much like Massachusetts was 47th in jobs under Governor Romney, New Jersey's economy is 47th under Christie.

To all those at CPAC who come away from this morning's bombastic speech saying Romney should choose Christie for his Veep slot, I suggest looking back just four short years to the last time a GOP nominee chose a running mate with less than 3 years experience who is far better at being provocative than productive. Try as he might, Christie can't put lipstick on the failure of his so-called "Jersey Comeback."

Here's some free advice to Governor Christie from one constituent: Don't come back to Jersey unless you come back bearing new jobs. Don't audition for a new job until you've done the job you already have. And that means creating the jobs that you bragged about and never got around to actually producing.

* * * *

One New Jersey is shining a light on politicians who act against the best interests of New Jersey’s residents and who seek to divide our state for their own political gain. It is giving voice to the important issues that affect our daily lives. One New Jersey will closely monitor policy positions and actions of elected officials and expose their records on the issues that matter. You can follow One New Jersey on Twitter (@OneNJ) or search for “One New Jersey” on Facebook.

One Month to Go: What Updated Budget Information Means for Deliberations

 by David Rousseau  |  Published in NJPP Blog: As a Matter of Fact ...

Last week’s presentations to the budget committees by the treasurer and the Office of Legislative Services (OLS) complete the legislature’s public review of the governor’s proposed FY 2013 budget, and they will provide the framework for negotiations between the administration and legislators leading up to the June 30 budget deadline.

So what do the new revenue projections and spending updates mean for next year’s budget? The answer to that lies in the answer to a number of key questions:

What is the significance of the more than $600 million revenue difference between OLS ($1.3 billion shortfall) and the Christie Administration ($676 million shortfall)?

Based on the history of revenue estimating, it is safe to assume that both updated revenue estimates will be wrong. The questions will be by how far and in what direction.

In periods of economic recovery, the administration and OLS generally both underestimate actual revenue. This year, however, with the difference being so large, the actual collections could fall in between the two estimates.

While the more than $600 million difference in projected revenue represents only a 1 percent difference in revenue over a two-year period, it does represent the largest difference since 2001 when OLS was nearly $1.6 billion below the DiFrancesco administration’s estimates. The 1 percent differential is also similar to 2009, when OLS was $574 million below the estimates of the Corzine administration.

Despite its statistically small size, the difference is significant since it represents more than double the amount of the surplus estimated in the budget.

What are the potential consequences of using the OLS estimates?

If legislative leaders decided to adopt the non-partisan revenue estimates that are $628 million lower than the administration’s revised estimates, they would have to a similar amount in additional spending reductions and/or revenue to offset the loss. Due to the cuts that have been made by the Corzine and Christie administrations there are not many – if any – additional spending reductions that would not have substantial impact on state programs and residents.

An easy way to make up some of that money would be to nix the tax cut plans, at least for this year. But even doing that would only save the state $183 million next year – or less than 30 percent of the overall shortfall. The legislature would still need to find an additional $444 million in budget reductions or new revenues. This would not be an easy task.

Using the OLS numbers would severely impact the legislature’s ability to deal with other concerns in the governor’s budget. In fact, addressing some of the major concerns in the governor’s budget would likely be improbable since the legislature would first have to find the $627 million to cover the OLS shortfall, and then find additional reductions or revenue to fund any policy changes they may want to make to the budget.

It is interesting to note that the FY 2013 impact of the “millionaires’ tax” that was vetoed by the governor last year is about $800 million. If Democrats wanted to cover the shortfall this year, a similar proposal could easily do so, while providing an extra $180 million to address other policy concerns. But don’t hold your breath; even if the measure didn’t face a certain veto, Democrats would want any “fair share” tax to help fund popular programs like property tax relief or education, not to cover a revenue shortfall.

If the legislature adopts the OLS revenue estimates, and actual revenue collections during the year are closer or even above the administration estimates, the governor would then have this additional revenue to use in the FY 2014 budget (the possible reelection budget). In other words, the legislature would take the heat for any cuts or other actions they took to offset the shortfall, and the governor might get extra revenue for politically driven election-year proposals.

And if the legislature adopts the OLS estimates and they turn out to be on point, there is still no major downside for the administration, as it won’t have to make any cuts or adjustments – that dirty work will have already been done by legislators.

What are the potential consequences of using the administration’s estimates?

There are relatively no short-term negative consequences to using the administration’s revenue numbers, even though they are $628 million more optimistic than OLS’s. The administration is willing to risk that its numbers will be correct; if they aren’t, it won’t likely have to be dealt with – or even acknowledged – until the governor prepares his FY 2014 budget next February.

Politically, using the higher revenue estimates allows the administration to keep the same growth rates it had assumed in February, thus maintaining the illusion of stronger economic growth as part of the “New Jersey Comeback.” It also allows the administration to continue to push for its tax cuts, since it has already covered the shortfall in its revised plan.

If the actual collections are lower than the estimates, the administration will need to make adjustments to the budget to address the additional shortfall. Unless there is a major negative change in the economy in the next six months, any shortfall will likely not materialize until the second half of the year, and would be dealt with as part of the FY 2014 budget.

In the short term, the administration will have to defend these revenue projections to the rating agencies as they prepare their annual review of the state budget and make pronouncements on the state’s fiscal health. It should be noted that Moody’s recently stated that they expect revenue growth for FY 2014 would be similar to the growth in the current year. If that pans out, OLS says, there could be a total revenue shortfall of over $2 billion.

What estimates are likely to be used for the budget?

Even though the Democratic leadership jumped to the estimates of OLS last June you should not bet the mortgage on the Democrats being consistent. Last year OLS had projected more revenue than the administration, so the use of those estimates allowed the Democrats to propose additional spending.

But “consistency” is not an adjective that can be used to describe decision-making by legislators. It is highly likely that this year, they will defer to the governor and use the estimates presented by the state treasurer.

Unless the administration reduces its estimates further based on collections over the next few weeks, the budget will likely be based on the administration’s numbers. With more money to play with, legislators can move forward with their own tax-cut plans, and possibly address other minor concerns that have bubbled up during the budget hearings.

CHRISTIE BELIES HIS “BIPARTISANSHIP”

For Immediate Release:
Monday, May 7th, 2012

In Speech to Right-Wing Think Tank, Christie Shows True Colors

(NEW JERSEY) – On Friday, Governor Chris Christie once again jetted off to speak to a fawning out-of-state audience in his incessant quest to bolster talk about being a potential vice-presidential pick. This time it was at an awards banquet in Washington, D.C. sponsored by The Cato Institute – a right-wing think tank.

The next time Christie tries to tell someone he is bipartisan and there is room on the big boulevard of ideas in New Jersey, just remember these words from his speech:

"I could sit down and negotiate with the Democratic leadership and the Democratically controlled legislature to try to come to an agreement on these cuts, or, thanks to New Jersey's unique Constitutional structure, cut spending through executive order. Now, for those of you who watched me over the past two and a half years, if you believe I chose the former, then it is now time for you to leave. You are note smart enough to be here at the Milton Friedman Dinner." – Governor Chris Christie (5/4/2012)

In Christie’s world, bipartisanship means others simply acquiescing to his desires both politically and policy-wise. The Christie definition of bipartisanship is dictating the policies and getting Democrats to vote for them. This is a stale retread of the “my way or the highway approach,” rather than his lip service of meeting others on the boulevard of ideas.

Here is just a small sampling of Christie’s “bipartisan” leadership:

• Demanding income tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the super-wealthy, rather than more equitable property tax cuts that help middle-class families
• Saying he had better things to do – like re-arrange his sock drawer – than debate a Democrat over New Jersey’s tax plans
• Refusing to even contemplate a millionaire’s tax
• Line-item-vetoing women’s health funding – which traditionally has bipartisan support in New Jersey
• Pushing an ALEC-approved raft of policy proposals
• Rolling back decades of environmental protections via the DEP Waiver Rules
• Pulling New Jersey out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
• Cancelling the long bipartisan-supported ARC Tunnel linking New Jersey to Manhattan
• Waging war on an independent judiciary
• Degrading defiant Democrats with name-calling – such as “jerk”, “numbnuts” and “liar”

** One more note from the Cato Institute speech that shows how Governor Christie plays fast and loose with the facts is when Bergen Record columnist Herb Jackson noted: “Christie stressed the importance of being honest with the public, but he also used exaggerated figures to make the deficits he closed and the tax cuts he’s enacted and proposed seem larger. For example, he cited the multiyear value of tax cuts.”

* * * *

One New Jersey is shining a light on politicians who act against the best interests of New Jersey’s residents and who seek to divide our state for their own political gain. It is giving voice to the important issues that affect our daily lives. One New Jersey will closely monitor policy positions and actions of elected officials and expose their records on the issues that matter. You can follow One New Jersey on Twitter (@OneNJ) or search for “One New Jersey” on Facebook.

One New Jersey: GOVERNORS ONE PERCENT UNITE IN WISCONSIN

For Immediate Release:
Tuesday, May 1st, 2012
 

Christie Rushes To Help Embattled Walker in Shared War Against Middle-Class Families

 
(NEW JERSEY) – Today, America’s two most anti-middle-class governors are joining forces, as One Percent Governor Chris Christie heads to Wisconsin to headline two fundraisers for fellow One Percent Governor Scott Walker. By rushing to Walker's aid during this historic recall, it is clear which side Christie stands on in the struggle between middle-class families and corporate interests.


Walker and Christie are cut from the same Koch Brothers cloth. They both do the bidding of deep-pocketed backers at the expense of the middle-class and share the same political D.N.A when it comes to harming the working families who make up the backbone of their states. Just like Walker, Christie demonizes public unions and puts collective bargaining in the crosshairs as the centerpiece of so-called “reform”.

While raking in the right-wing money for Walker, Christie will undoubtedly tout his self-serving and factually-challenged “Jersey Comeback” - while conveniently neglecting to mention that New Jersey consistently lags the rest of the nation when it comes to unemployment. Considering how he shares the same warped worldview as Walker and the donors who support them both, Christie should have little trouble finding red meat to offer fawning audiences in Milwaukee and Green Bay. For once, Christie can rely on the truth – that he and Walker are kindred spirits in promoting the interests of the powerful and politically-connected ahead of the well-being of seniors, children and middle-class families. Tonight, Christie can easily clasp Walker’s hands as, together, they wave the banner of corporate interests while demonizing cops, firefighters, teachers and other public workers.

In New Jersey, Christie has championed rolling back environmental protections, union contracts and health benefits. He’s claimed fiscal discipline in cutting services, while giving handouts, bailouts and tax breaks to casino moguls, mall developers and the wealthiest One Percent. Christie refuses to even contemplate a millionaire's tax, while his much-ballyhooed income tax plan won’t help middle-class families in any meaningful manner. If Christie had his way, a family earning $50,000 would save a piddling $80.50 and a family earning $100,000 would get back just $275. Of course, millionaires will benefit most - by getting back a whopping $7,265.

In taking his swagger to Wisconsin, Christie is clearly embracing both Walker’s regressive policies and his politics of divisiveness. This is no surprise to anyone who has followed Christie’s record in New Jersey – where he has showered the super-wealthy with benefits and freebies, while hammering middle-class families. With a Walker-like reputation of his own, it will only be a matter of time before the people of the Garden State come to the same obvious conclusion against Christie as Wisconsin voters have against the out-of touch governor in the Badger State.

****

One New Jersey is shining a light on politicians who act against the best interests of New Jersey’s residents and who seek to divide our state for their own political gain. It is giving voice to the important issues that affect our daily lives. One New Jersey will closely monitor policy positions and actions of elected officials and expose their records on the issues that matter. You can follow One New Jersey on Twitter or search for “One New Jersey” on Facebook.

United for a Fair Economy Applauds Obama Revenue Proposal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Boston, MA (September 20, 2011): United for a Fair Economy (UFE) applauds President Obama’s proposal to raise $1.5 trillion in revenue by increasing taxes primarily on the wealthiest one percent of taxpayers and corporations. Over the last decade, the richest Americans have seen their income and wealth soar while benefitting from sharply reduced taxation.

"At a time of unprecedented economic inequality, extensive unemployment, and deep concern over our country’s long-term fiscal health, it is entirely appropriate and economically sound to institute progressive taxation as the best solution to our nation’s challenges," said Lee Farris, senior organizer on federal tax policy at United for a Fair Economy.

President Obama’s proposal seeks to let the Bush tax cuts expire for upper-income taxpayers, close corporate tax loopholes, end oil and gas subsidies, and limit the amount that high earners can deduct. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, only the richest five percent of taxpayers would pay additional taxes under Mr. Obama’s proposal, with 75 percent of the increases paid by the richest one percent.

United for a Fair Economy especially supports President Obama’s proposed "Buffett Rule,” that would establish a minimum tax on taxpayers making $1 million or more in income, and would limit the benefit they receive from the 15 percent tax rate on investment income.

"People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay," said Farris.

UFE is encouraged that the President vowed to veto any deficit reduction package that cuts benefits to Medicare recipients but does not raise taxes on the wealthy and big corporations.

Given UFE’s decade-long campaign for a robust estate tax, UFE views the President’s proposal for the estate tax to return at its weakened 2009 level as a missed opportunity to raise much-needed revenue from multi-millionaire inheritors to improve our nation's fiscal health.

United for a Fair Economy urges Americans to tell Congress to reform our tax code so wealthy individuals and large corporations pay their fair share. We support the tax package developed by Rebuild the Dream, which includes taxing capital gains and investment income at the same rate as income from wages, new higher tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires, a stronger estate tax, and ending offshore tax havens for corporations and individuals. UFE also supports HR 1124, the Fairness in Taxation Act.


United for a Fair Economy is a national, independent, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) non-profit organization located in Boston, MA, which works to rein in economic inequality and promote a more broadly shared prosperity. More at www.faireconomy.org.

As A Matter Of Fact...Budget vetoes: The scorpion and the frog

July 6th, 2011 | Published in NJPP Blog: As a Matter of Fact …

By Mary E. Forsberg, Research Director

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, “How do I know you won’t sting me?” The scorpion says, “Because if I do, I will die too.”

The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp “Why?”

Replies the scorpion: “It’s my nature…”

This parable has many variations: the scorpion and turtle; the snake and dog; the viper and farmer. What each variation has in common is a bad actor, a character who can’t play fair, even if it means he might perish.

Those who are reading the press these days may recognize certain similarities with the current state of politics in New Jersey. And the Democratic leadership surely is croaking now.

It wasn’t a surprise that the governor wielded his ax against the Millionaires’ tax and women’s health programs. He did it before. He said he would do it again and he did it.

What was surprising, though, were the other cuts that had nothing to do with policy and everything to do with the very nature of his leadership. The cuts are unprecedented and go beyond any reasonable policy and fiscal considerations.

The Legislature

The budgets of the Executive office, the Legislature and the Judiciary have always been sacrosanct; a “gentleman’s agreement” has traditionally given each responsibility for its own budget and spending.

No governor before has chopped 41 percent from the Legislature’s staff salary accounts, but that’s exactly what the governor did. And he did it with a dose of venom, saying:

“The budget as adopted by the Legislature relied upon exaggerated revenue estimates, flawed assumptions concerning fund balances and ignored the harsh reality of its spending decisions. This reduction, among many others enumerated herein necessitated reductions of known surpluses, imprudent spending and other excesses.”

People who have noticed this salary cut haven’t made much of it. But the fact is, it has the potential to shift the balance of power in the legislative branch. Here’s how that works.

The salary accounts that the governor cut will not affect the salaries of legislators or those of their district office staff. The ones cut supported the Democratic and Republican legislative committee aides and the people who run the partisan staff offices in Trenton. Money for those salaries is appropriated to the Senate and Assembly in a lump sum and is divided based on which party is in the majority – the majority party (currently the Democrats) gets more of the money, has a bigger staff and has the larger suite of offices.

Unless the Legislature overrides this veto with a 2/3 vote (which would require the support of both parties), the staff of those offices will be significantly reduced. How these cuts are shared will be up to the majority Democrats in the Senate and Assembly. And as Assembly Speaker Oliver, a Democrat, was quoted as saying, “I’m certainly not going to shoot myself in the foot.”

Whether the governor understands this or not, a greatly reduced Republican partisan staff in Trenton is certainly a possible outcome of this line item veto.

Higher Education

Students and institutions of higher education felt the sting of the governor’s veto, which cut full-time and part-time Tuition Aid Grants (TAG) below even his own budget recommendation in March. He reduced the Democrats’ appropriation by $48.5 million, even though the amount in the Democrat’s budget was only $21.3 million more than his budget recommended.

In another unusual veto, the governor reduced the number of state-funded positions at each college by nearly 1,200 positions overall. This veto is an easy one to overlook and understanding it isn’t straightforward. What it means, however, is that the governor is reducing the state’s obligation to pay fringe benefits costs for these positions and is transferring those costs to the colleges – all without prior consultation and at the last minute. It is a backhanded way of again reducing the state’s responsibility for its higher education system. For Rutgers University and the Agricultural Experiment Station, this represents a 6 percent loss; for the other colleges, a 5 percent loss.

The veto message was again venomous. He blames the Legislature for this cost shift, saying:

“The Legislature’s failure to appropriately fund health benefit costs for all state employees necessitated a reduction in the state’s support of employee fringe benefits at all public institutions of higher education.”

Legal Services to the Poor


If you are poor in New Jersey and have a legal problem, save it until next year – maybe. Like the TAG scholarship, legal services will be significantly less than even what the governor proposed in his March budget.

His veto eliminated all state funding ($600,000) for the legal clinics at Seton Hall University Law School, Rutgers Newark Law School and Rutgers Camden Law School. In March he budgeted each of them for $200,000 apiece.

He also apparently took umbrage at the additional $5 million included by the Democrats in their budget for Legal Services of New Jersey, which provides legal services to poor people in civil matters. He cut that budget by $10 million – leaving Legal Services of New Jersey with a smaller budget than he recommended in March.

Cleaning up New Jersey

The Governor’s veto cut $18.8 million or 16 percent of the amount he recommended in March for Department of Environmental Protection programs that safeguard and preserve the state’s environment – for remediation of hazardous waste, underground storage tanks, monitoring water, and dealing with diesel pollution. Funding for these programs comes from a 4 percent constitutional dedication of corporate business tax (CBT) revenues. The effort by the governor and some in the Legislature to ensure that New Jersey is “open for business” by doing away with regulations and reducing corporate taxes means less money is available to protect New Jersey’s environment.

The moral of the budget

No one expected the governor to move away from his ideological position on funding health care for women or to abdicate his protection of the wealthiest in the state from the Millionaire’s tax, which would have added an additional 1.78 percent to their income tax bills this year.

But the veto message this year went beyond negotiation and fair play. There are consequences to every action. The scorpion’s sting meant death to both the scorpion and the frog. The consequences of this veto message are a less prosperous state and an increase in the chasm that separates the state’s wealthy from everyone else.

For a complete list of the governor’s line item vetoes, see the chart

AS A Matter Of Fact...Democrats make a statement with budget plan of their own

June 27th, 2011 | Published in NJPP Blog: As a Matter of Fact …

Democrats have done an unexpected thing. With just days to go before a budget must be enacted, they have introduced their own budget – a “this is what we stand for” budget – with a companion millionaires’ tax to restore at least some of the Christie administration’s proposed program cuts.

That they did this shouldn’t be a surprise.

It’s common practice for the party that controls the Legislature to draft and sponsor the state budget. The Democrats control both houses just as they did last year.

But last year the majority party ceded budget power to the Republican minority, who produced a bill that closely resembled Governor Christie’s March 2010 proposal. Many expected the same to happen this year, so it’s somewhat surprising Democratic leaders have proposed a spending plan of their own.

Here’s what is being proposed [The actual list of changes has not been posted publicly although the press has been briefed and Senate President Sweeney’s office confirmed details]:

MORE REVENUE

$913 million from higher than expected revenue estimates: In March 2011, Governor Christie’s proposed budget planned to spend $29.4 billion in FY 2012. In May, when revenue projections were updated, the Office of Legislative Services (OLS) estimated that collections for the current year and next would be $913 million more than the Governor’s original March estimate. The estimate assumed the current tax structure would remain the same.

$550 million from the reintroduction of the millionaires’ tax: Last year, the legislature passed a millionaires’ tax bill that increased taxes on taxpayers with incomes over $1 million. Governor Christie vetoed the bill. The legislature could not override the veto. In this year’s bill, the additional tax revenue would be tied to additional aid for wealthier suburban schools. Part of the logic is that Republican legislators might be willing to vote for a bill to raise income tax rates on their wealthier constituents if that additional revenue stays in the wealthier school districts.

$300 million in funding shifts from programs that have unused balances: Not all programs spend their entire appropriation every year. Unspent funds either lapse and become unavailable to the program or they rollover and become part of the same program’s spending in the following year. This year the legislature has determined that $300 million is available to be cut from programs that have been over-funded in the past and added to programs that need additional support.

AMONG THE DEMOCRATS’ PRIORITIES

School Aid: The democrats’ bill would add at least $1.1 billion to school spending. Senator Sweeney said this includes the Supreme Court-mandated $500 million for the state’s poorest, urban districts and $600 million for defunded suburban school districts. Something to keep in mind is that the original Millionaires tax enacted in 2004 was tied to property tax relief for senior citizens. That connection made the bill palatable to some Republican legislators who represented senior citizens who would benefit from the property tax relief but would not be subject to the higher tax rates.

Property Tax Relief: It is said the bill would double Homestead Property Tax Rebates – not triple them as Christie said he would do.

Money not spent on the Homestead Property Tax Rebates would be used to unfreeze the Senior Freeze program, allowing new seniors to participate and raising the amount rebated. This program freezes property taxes for people over 65 who earn less than $80,000. In the current fiscal year, only seniors already in the program were eligible for the rebate and the amount was limited to the amount received in the prior year.

It is said an additional $50 million would be made available to communities with understaffed fire and police departments – aiding Newark, Camden and other communities with high crime rates.

Health Care: It is said the bill would restore $7.5 million in ideological cuts to women’s health clinics and $300 million for NJ FamilyCare and Medicaid to allow working parents to continue to obtain affordable health care coverage.

WILL THIS WORK?

By law, New Jersey must pass a budget by the end of the day on Thursday, June 30th. Passing a budget on time is a deadline the state has always taken seriously.

It is impossible to know now how the negotiations are going – if the Democrats will be successful in their attempt to share the sacrifice among all income groups and help the poor and middle class in this state. The governor vetoed a millionaires’ tax last year and has said he will veto it again. It seems unlikely Republicans would join Democrats to over-ride the governor’s veto, especially in an election year, although redistricting has left some Republicans in more Democratic districts.

In battles of the budget, the New Jersey governor holds most of the cards. He alone has the power to determine revenues and set the limit on funds available for programs. If Governor Christie doesn’t agree the state will collect an additional $800 million next year or if he vetoes the Millionaires’ tax and the legislature can’t over ride the veto, that’s money the legislature can’t spend. In addition, New Jersey’s governor has line-item veto power. Any program he doesn’t want funded can be reduced or eliminated. If this happens, the legislature’s only recourse is to override that veto if two-thirds of the legislators support the override.

The only successful override of a governor’s veto was in 1992. Governor Florio vetoed the entire budget passed by the then Republican-controlled legislature. The Republican budget had cut $1.1 billion from Governor Florio’s proposed $15.7 billion budget. At the time, the Republicans had a 27-to-13 majority in the Senate and a 58-to-22 majority in the Assembly. The override passed both houses with no votes to spare. (It was opposed by all Democrats and, in the Assembly, two Republicans.

Democrats now have a 24-to-16 majority in the Senate and a 47-to-33 majority in the Assembly, making veto overrides more difficult. So far none have been successful. Perhaps it will be this budget – this statement of what New Jersey ought to stand for – that will be the first success.

As A Matter Of Fact...New Jersey revenue projections

May 17th, 2011 | Published in NJPP Blog: As a Matter of Fact …

New Jersey Policy Perspective president Deborah Howlett made the following statement about revenue projections presented today to the Assembly Budget Committee by the Office of Legislative Services:

While it’s great to hear that New Jersey tax revenues seem to have bottomed out and are beginning to climb, the state remains stuck in a very deep hole.

The Office of Legislative Services projects that revenues will approach $29.9 billion next year, an increase of $1.17billion over its current year estimates. However, even with that growth, the state’s revenue collections would still be $3.4 billion less than was collected in FY2008, the year prior to the recession. Almost all of the increase is driven by higher income tax collections fueled by the rebound on Wall Street. Revenues from sales, corporate business and other taxes are still below estimates.

The state must choose to invest these revenues wisely, using the money to restore the devastating cuts made to services and to pay into the state pension system. The money should not be used, as the governor suggested was his goal during his budget address in February, to fuel $2.5 billion in corporate tax breaks over the next five years. He’s already used $1 billion in future tax revenues to subsidize corporations and business since taking office. Those efforts have contributed to the state’s lackluster corporate tax revenue collections and have failed to create quality jobs. It’s time to abandon old, tired trickle down economic theory and embrace the reality that creating a strong, vibrant economy and attracting good, solid middle class jobs requires great schools, safe streets and the high quality of living New Jersey attained before the recession.

While the increase in revenue is welcome news, New Jersey still has far to go before it is made whole again.

Contrasting Styles Between Cuomo & Christie; Different Approach, Same Outcome No Animosity

NJ.com yesterday had an interesting editorial that I think a lot of people should be reading.

In the face of an $11 billion dollar budget defect, NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo balanced NY's budget by cutting spending and entitlement without raising taxes just as our governor did last year (although that is somewhat debatable). Cuomo achieved this by reaching out to legislator and including them in the process. Gov. Christie on the other hand, has created divisiveness between the governor's office and those in the legislature with his take it or leave it approach and sledgehammer style.

Interestingly Cuomo was able to balance his State's budget without demonizing any one group (public employees) or had to hold nonstop "Town Hall" meetings to convince people that there is a problem and his way of solving it, is the only way that it can be done.

Resident of NJ should take notice and see how a different, less caustic and abrasive style can achieve similar yet far different results.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo just won agreement on a budget for New York state that cuts overall spending and contains no new taxes. He even blocked an attempt by fellow Democrats to extend a surtax on millionaires.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because New Jersey did all that last year. Perhaps Cuomo looked across the Hudson and liked what he saw.

Now maybe Gov. Chris Christie can return the compliment. Because Cuomo has something to teach him as well.

Note the lack of personal attacks in Albany. Cuomo was tough, but he wasn’t abusive. He didn’t call his Assembly speaker a liar, for example, or clear his schedule for a nonstop tour on the unlimited greed of teachers and cops.

And he negotiated. Especially relevant to New Jersey was Cuomo’s approach to Medicaid.

Like most states, New York and New Jersey are facing daunting increases in health care costs. Cuomo’s approach was collaborative.

He invited key stakeholders, including hospitals and unions, to sit together and hammer out an agreement on cuts. If they couldn’t come up with an answer, he said, then he would do it for them.

After two months, Cuomo’s committee pulled it off, agreeing to 79 cost-cutting measures, from lowering reimbursements to shifting patients to managed care plans.

Christie wants to cut $540 million in Medicaid spending next year, a huge sum that both sides expect to be a main point of contention. But he’s drawn up his plan in secret, and even now is keeping the Legislature out of the loop. People such as Sen. Joseph Vitale (D-Middlesex), a key architect of the current system, are still looking for basic answers.

“They are crafting their own proposal in a vacuum,” Vitale says. “They would be wise to include legislators.”

Cuomo’s collaboration ensured that his plan had broad political support, and would pass. Christie’s approach risks just the opposite.

NJPP Monday Minute 5/17/10: The Millionaire's Tax: It's a Start

The New Jersey state budget is far from settled. In just over a week Treasurer Sidamon-Eristoff and Legislative Budget and Finance Officer David Rosen will appear again before the budget committees to reexamine the state's financial condition and revenue collections.

A showdown is brewing between the Democrats in the Legislature and Governor Christie. Last week, both the Senate and Assembly passed bills out of committee to raise income taxes on taxpayers with incomes over $1 million. Votes were along partisan lines and a full vote of the legislature is expected shortly. The bills are expected to pass both houses because Democrats are the majority party in both chambers (Senate: 23 Democrats out of 40; Assembly: 47 Democrats out of 80). Gov. Christie has reiterated he will veto all tax increases. A two-thirds majority is needed to override a veto - that might be problematic.

Identical bills (S-10 and A-10) have been introduced to raise income tax rates to 10.75 percent from 8.97 percent on taxpayers with incomes exceeding $1 million. This new rate would be retroactive to January 1, 2010 and is expected to raise about $637 million in FY 2011. Approximately 16,000 taxpayers would be affected.

These tax bills have companion spending bills (S-20 and A-20) that reinstate homestead rebates to certain senior and disabled homeowners and tenants ($563.2 million) and restore cuts the Governor recommended to the prescription assistance programs Pharmaceutical Assistance to the Aged and Disabled or PAAD ($55.5 million) and Senior Gold ($55.5 million). These companion spending bills would be inactive until the tax bill is passed.

The provisions of the companion spending bills are as follows:

Homestead Rebates for Senior and Disabled Citizens
The Governor's proposed budget eliminates homestead rebates for 2010, affecting over 500,000 homeowners and 100,000 tenants. These rebates would be replaced with a tax credit that would be deducted directly from quarterly property tax bills starting in May 2011.

S-20/A-20 would pay property tax rebates to senior and disabled homeowners whose incomes are under $150,000 and to senior and disabled tenants whose incomes are under $100,000. Depending on income, average homeowner rebates would range from $750 to about $1,300 and average tenant rebates would range from $150 to $700.

Pharmaceutical Assistance to the Aged and Disabled (PAAD) and Senior Gold
The Governor's proposed budget increases the PAAD co-payment for brand name drugs to $15 per prescription from $7 and beginning January 1, 2011 requires recipients of both PAAD and Senior Gold to pay an annual $310 deductible before being eligible for low-cost medications. The $310 deductible affects approximately 100,000 senior and disabled PAAD recipients with incomes below $24,432 (single) and $29,956 (married) and another 23,000 Senior Gold participants with incomes between $24,432 and $34,432 (single) and $29,956 and $39,956 (married). The deductible for married couples is $620.

S-20/A-20 would eliminate the co-pay increase for PAAD recipients and the new $310 deductible for both PAAD and Senior Gold recipients.

This could be great news for New Jersey's senior and disabled residents, but not so much for everyone else:

• Libraries will close or have shorter hours with limited internet access because the state library budget has been eliminated.
• Children will pay more for breakfast and lunch or go without.
• Some after school programs that keep kids safe are eliminated.
• Tuition Aid Grants to college students are reduced at the same time the state cut more operating funds than ever to the state's public colleges.
• Some parents of children enrolled in the state's FamilyCare program will no longer be eligible for this program themselves.
• Women who can't afford health insurance will not get prenatal and ob-gyn care.
• Working families receiving the state Earned Income Tax Credit will be hit with a tax hike when the credit amount is cut from 25 percent to 20 percent.
• NJ Transit fare increases up to 45 percent will further strain the budgets of commuters and the state's mass transit system.

All of the above represent increased costs in one form or another. Cuts to schools, municipalities and libraries will increase class sizes, raise property taxes and eliminate free services like library internet use and inter-library loans. Increased costs to college students may make them defer college or take longer to complete degrees. Cuts in FamilyCare and family planning services will mean more people in emergency rooms and more expensive health care. The highest ever transit increases will put more people in cars, causing greater deterioration of roads and bridges and an increase in air pollution.These cuts will most severely hurt middle and low-income people in the state - those with the fewest choices.

The new revenue and spending bills are a good start but more needs to be done. New Jersey's budget crisis must be resolved with a balanced approach that includes other taxes and shared sacrifice by all. For other budget options, check out the Better Choices Coalition.