Responding to Anonymous

 I received the following comment from a Middletown resident concerning My Statement On The Results of The 2024 Election in a previous post. I thought the comment was worth sharing here with everyone because it was both respectful and thoughtful. People need to engage more civilly each other and tone down the hostilities when expressing their ideas or opinions that run counter with other:

Anonymous, November 9th 2024 at 8:34 PM:

 Thank you for caring about our community, and for offering your service. I did not vote for you, being very pleased with the job Tony Perry has done serving as our mayor. I do wish you well in future endeavors.

I would like to say, however, that some of the issues you mentioned are NOT unique to Middletown, nor are they all to the credit or blame of our leaders. Housing is NOT affordable in most places in New Jersey. This is a very expensive place to live, and with raging inflation in the past few years, it has become MORE expensive and out of the reach of many. But the remedy suggested of building more "affordable" housing on our limited footprint of available spaces is perhaps the least desirable solution. More overcrowding on our roads, in our schools, and overtaxing our infrastructure? Loss of what little open spaces we have? No thank you. Most residents moved here or stayed here because they like the character of this town. Turning it into a crowded city is not a solution that is palatable to Middletowners.

Nor is social engineering that turns our town into a very different place. I hope our mayor and council will focus on keeping costs in control, minimizing need for budget busting tax increases, while continuing to deliver essential services to people who bought in here months, years or decades ago, to enjoy the lifestyle Middletown offered. Not everyone can afford to live in every town in NJ. Thats a fact of life. As with EVERY SINGLE SUBURBAN TOWN, some can afford to live here, others cannot and might have to live elsewhere. Just like everything else in life.

Here is my response:

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I appreciate you taking the time to share your views, even if we don’t see eye-to-eye on everything. Open conversations like this help us understand each other and make our community better.

You’re right that affordability is a big issue across New Jersey, not just here in Middletown. The rising cost of living has made it tough for many families, and while local leaders can’t fix everything, they do have a role in managing how our town deals with these challenges.

I understand your concerns about affordable housing. No one wants to see our roads clogged, schools overcrowded, or open spaces disappear. But adding affordable housing doesn’t have to mean sacrificing what makes Middletown special. With smart planning, we can find ways to grow responsibly—focusing on areas that can handle new developments and making sure infrastructure keeps up.

One important point to consider is the future of our children. Many young adults who grew up here are finding it nearly impossible to stay in the community because housing has become unattainable. Affordable housing isn’t about low-income developments; it’s about giving people—especially the next generation—the chance to attain the American dream. That means having a shot at homeownership or finding a place to live in the town they love without being priced out.

The idea that only people who can afford the current cost of living should stay in Middletown is tricky. A community thrives when it’s diverse. Teachers, first responders, young families, and seniors are all important to our town. Making it easier for them to live here isn’t about “social engineering”; it’s about keeping Middletown a place where everyone has a chance to belong.

I also agree that keeping taxes in check and managing the budget wisely are essential. No one wants unnecessary tax hikes. But we can’t cut corners on things like schools, infrastructure, and public services. If we invest wisely now, it will pay off later, helping Middletown remain a great place to live for everyone.

Thanks again for sharing your perspective. It’s clear you care deeply about our town, and I hope we can continue this conversation to find solutions that work for all of us.

NJSpotlight: A RIVER OF CASH: ANALYZING NJ’S MULTIBILLION-DOLLAR REVENUE STREAMS

Here is another article from NJSpotlight that I think is interesting and makes you go Hmmm.

Why is it so expensive to live in New Jersey? Where does all the tax dollars go once collected by the various entities around the state?

NJSpotlight attempts to tell us:

A RIVER OF CASH: ANALYZING NJ’S MULTIBILLION-DOLLAR REVENUE STREAMS
JOHN REITMEYER | JANUARY 30, 2019
A new report calculates the billions of dollars that flow through the layers of government in the Garden State annually

After analyzing the budgets of over 1,000 government agencies, a right-leaning think tank found that governments in New Jersey are raising more than $86 billion annually from taxes, fees and other revenues. That number does not include federal funds or the revenues of authorities and independent bistate agencies like the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (which alone has annual operating expenses of $3.3 billion) or the Delaware River Port Authority ($301 million).

The report, “Adding it All Up” by the Garden State Initiative, was a difficult endeavor. The decentralized governing structure of the state — with its hundreds of governments, municipalities and authorities — makes it virtually impossible for residents to get a sense of exactly how much the system costs to run on an annual basis. GSI had to analyze the budgets of numerous agencies, ranging from state and county all the way down to local sewerage authorities.

The total haul soars to well over $100 billion after funds provided by the federal government are added in. And it tops out at $121 billion once investment gains by the public-worker pension funds and revenue from all authorities that operate in New Jersey, including bistate entities like the Port Authority, are factored in.

The goal of the Morristown-based group’s complicated accounting exercise was to determine just how much it costs to deliver government services in New Jersey. The report also sets the table for a deeper analysis of whether residents are getting bang for their buck. The group is promising to issue follow-up reports exploring ways governments can save money with specific efficiencies. GSI believes it will be able to identify opportunities for at least $1 billion in potential cuts in the coming weeks.

“Taxes are already too high and cutting expenditures haphazardly just to lower costs will cause us to lose the great public services of our state,” according to the report, which was provided to NJ Spotlight in advance of today’s official release.

“The key is to find efficiencies that make government work better for everybody,” the report said....

Continue reading.

Sean Byrnes, NJ State Senate Candidate (LD13) Answers 10 Questions

Today, it's Sean Byrnes's turn to have his answers to my 10 questions posted. Sean is the candidate for the NJ State Senate for the 13th legislative district. Sean is a Middletown resident and former member of the Middletown Township Committee. He is a veteran, business owner, lawyer and dedicated volunteer in his community.


What is your motivation for seeking a seat in the NJ State Senate and can you tell us a little about yourself?

I did not plan on running, but I am concerned with the direction of our State, and the treatment of working families. Our State has experienced 11 bond downgrades during the Christie Administration, which makes borrowing money very expensive for our State. We have the 2nd worst bond rating in the country. We are the highest taxed State. We have the most debt per taxpayer. By any measure, we are overtaxed, and the considerable, tangible assets of our State (e.g. shoreline, highway system, universities, proximity to NYC, port, educational system) have been squandered by an Administration focused on the White House rather than NJ residents. My opponent, one of the Governor’s staunchest supporters, cannot hide form this dismal record.

While things look bleak right now, we have a unique opportunity to shape our own destiny at a time when technology is evolving, sustainable energy sources are taking hold and cyber security emerges as an industry that promises to employ many qualified individuals. New Jersey has an opportunity to cultivate a business environment that brings together a mix of higher education institutions, entrepreneurs, new businesses and thoughtful state incentives dedicated to rebuilding our economy.

As you meet residents throughout your district what seems to be the greatest concerns they are expressing and how do you plan to address them?

Sean Byrnes

Taxes, the opioid crisis and a lack of good jobs seem to be the top three. The taxes we pay are the product of a misuse of the taxes collected by our State. The State has dramatically increased tax breaks for large corporations during the Christie Administration. In the decade before he came to office, the State gave a total of $1.2 Billion in taxes. Since he came to office, the State as granted approximately $8B in tax breaks. The State does a lousy job measuring the effectiveness of these large corporate giveaways. I would prefer to see these tax breaks to corporations scaled back and given to individual taxpayers, who will re-invest those funds in our local economy. If corporate tax breaks are going to be given, they should go to the small up and coming businesses, who produced new jobs are a far faster rate the large corporations. In addition, we must create incentives for municipalities and schools to share services, and when appropriate, consolidate. We have 565 municipalities and 590 school systems. By comparison, Maryland has 20 school districts. With that said, we can’t skimp when it comes to education. We have the second best educational system in the country, and this makes us a very attractive State for business. However, there are plenty of examples where some consolidation would be appropriate.

On the Opioid crisis, we need to fund and support longer periods of rehab for those suffering from addiction. We also need to understand that to a significant degree our current crisis stems from the flood of opioids sold by pharmaceutical companies. There is no legitimate justification for the incredible surge of opioids into the market place, and the makers and distributors of these substances must share some of the blame for this crisis. To the extent specific companies have ignored requirements or regulations that would have stemmed the flow of these substances into our communities, they must be held accountable and must share in the financial burden of helping those who suffer the consequences.

Lastly, to move forward and lift our economy, we need a vision and a plan. We need to cultivate those industries and segments of the market place that will be growth areas for years to come (e.g. cyber security, sustainable energy, nanomaterials, advanced robotics). We need financial incentives for students to pursue degrees suited for these growth areas. We need to make capital more available to small businesses. We need our institutions of higher learning to lead the way in education new workers, and retraining existing workers, so that New Jersey residents are ready and trained pursue employment in these areas.

What do you hope to accomplish once you are elected to the State Senate?

We must address the underfunding of pensions and benefits. Our failure to fund these has degraded our bonding rating and increased our cost of doing business. We must fund our community colleges, because the training and re-training of our workers will occur at these colleges. Four-year colleges are extremely expensive, and workers can be educated and land good jobs without taking on the debt associated with a four-year university. In general, I want to improve our State’s financial position and help grow our economy.


What is it that makes your district unique and how does that uniqueness impact your campaign?

Our District is unique, because of its socioeconomic diversity and its desirability. Lots of people want to live in Monmouth County. Our challenge is to make sure Monmouth County is affordable for everyone up and down the socioeconomic ladder. Ever-increasing real estate taxes, a lack of jobs that pay well, and ever-increasing costs of health care, make it very difficult for working families to survive and live in Monmouth County.


If elected, how would your professional background enhance your ability to be an effective State Senator?

As an attorney, I have an advantage when it comes to understanding our State’s laws and regulations and how they impact our citizens. Moreover, I have spent much of my time practicing law representing individuals and small businesses. From real estate transactions, to lawsuits, to defending people in foreclosure, to minor criminal offenses, I have had a front row seat on how our citizens are impacted by our State’s law. I have also seen how the individual in our society has lost many of the protections once available. If you are mistreated or overcharged by a large corporation, bank, cable company, cell phone carrier or any other multi-national corporation, your ability to seek a remedy or stop abusive behavior is almost non-existent. A surge of money into politics has titled the scales against the working family. I hope to have an opportunity to work on laws that protect working families.


 Do you have any thoughts on how to contain the growth of state government?

You simply must cap it. No more adding jobs. We live in a time when technology continues to advance at a rapid rate, making certain tasks easier and less time-consuming. In the private sector, this has caused a reduction in hours to produce certain products. As a State, we too should be able to deliver more with less. There is no reason for any further growth, and we should look for opportunities to curtail growth.


Is there any aspect of state government that you believe there is a need to be expanded upon?

No.


Why should residents of your district trust you to represent them in the legislature?

I have been representing individuals and small businesses in this area for almost 30 years. I have served on multiple not for profit Boards that serve our community. I have served in the Coast Guard for 21 years. I am loyal; I mean what I say, and I will work hard for the citizens of this District.


What does it mean to be a Democrat today?

My Democratic Party needs to return to its roots. We need to advocate and work every day for the working family. Fairness in jobs. Fairness in our legal system. Fairness in benefits. Fairness in our economy. The surge of money into politics allowed by Citizens United has altered the playing field. Wealth inequality is real. Income inequality is real. People don’t want or need a handout, but they need a fair share. I believe the current economy, including our tax code, favors the larger, corporate interests, and we must work hard to ensure that people have access to good jobs and fair wages. When we do that, everyone benefits.

We must also ensure that all are protected. Regardless of gender, age, color, race, orientation, we must all have the same opportunities and same protections under our laws.

We also need not be fearful. There are those in the media and public domain who hope to divide us by sowing fear and exaggerating dangers, to divide us. We must not give in to these fears. They are not rational, and they run contrary to our history, the bravery of those men and women who created this Republic, and the very ideals that underpin our democracy.


Is there anything that is important to you that has not been asked, that you would like to address?

In our District, we have a large powerline project proposed. I have studied it, reviewed the justifications, and determined it is unnecessary. I don’t believe the redundancy cited to as justifying the Project is real, or even if it were real, will ever justify the vast damage that will be done to our community. I have fought this Project, and I will continue to fight it. I will use my law degree, and if elected, my Office, to beat back this ill-conceived Project.



You can learn more about Sean Byrnes on his website Byrnes4senate.com

Buono Campaign: Christie Can't Hide His Failed Economic Record

For Immediate Release:

The Buono for Governor campaign released the following statement in response to the Christie campaign's latest ad:

"The Christie campaign's attempts to prop up his failed economic record ring hollow among the 400,000 people looking for work, the middle class families burdened by his 20 percent property tax increase and the students dealing with the devastating consequences of his $1 billion cut to education. 

"New Jerseyans are tired of his excuses and want a vision for a New Jersey that lifts up everyone rather than favoring millionaires and corporations."

- David Turner, a spokesman for the campaign

BACKGROUND

CHRISTIE'S NEW JERSEY COMEBACK NEVER HAPPENED

Star-Ledger Editorial: "Compared With The Rest Of The Country — Even The Rest Of Our Region — We Haven't Restored Nearly As Many Jobs Lost During The Start Of The Recession. Which Makes Gov. Chris Christie's Gloating Lately About The Jobs He's Created That Much More Insufferable." [Editorial, Star-Ledger, 4/7/13]

Asbury Park Press Editorial: "The Jersey Economic Comeback? Never Happened." [Editorial, Asbury Park Press, 8/19/13]

Bloomberg On Christie's Economic Record: "So Compared To The Country As A Whole, New Jersey Has Faltered Since Christie Took Office." [Bloomberg, 8/15/13]

CNBC: Christie Would Be "Unlikely To Point To New Jersey's Standing In Our America's Top States For Business Rankings. It Has Declined Since He Took Office In 2010" Falling From 30^th To 42^nd In 2013. "But he is unlikely to point to New Jersey's standing in our America's Top States for Business rankings. It has declined since he took office in 2010. That year and in 2011, New Jersey finished 30th overall. In 2012, the state plunged to 41st. For 2013, it drops another spot to 42nd." [CNBC, 7/13/13]

THE FACTS – HIGHEST UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE REGION, BOTTOM OF THE BARREL IN JOB CREATION, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY 400,000 NEW JERSEYANS ARE LOOKING FOR WORK

New Jersey's Unemployment Rate Of 8.5% Was The Highest Among Its Neighbors By Nearly Half A Point. In August 2013, New Jersey's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 8.5%. New York's was 7.6%, Pennsylvania's rate was 7.7%, Delaware's was 7.3%, Maryland's unemployment rates was 7.0% and Connecticut's was 8.1%. [BLS.gov, Accessed 9/20/13]

·     From January 2010 To August 2013, New Jersey's Unemployment Rate Dropped A Point, From 9.7% To 8.5%, While The National Unemployment Rate Dropped 2 Points, From 9.8% To 7.3%. [BLS.gov, Accessed 9/20/13]

August 2013: 391,667 New Jerseyans Are Out Of Work And Looking. [BLS.gov, Accessed 9/20/13]

August 2013: New Jersey Had Only Recovered 49% Of Jobs Lost During The Great Recession, While New York Recovered 126% And Pennsylvania 78%, And The Nation 78%. New Jersey's peak total non-farm seasonally adjusted employment came in January 2008, at 4,092,200. The low point came in September 2010 at 3,969,800 and August 2013, New Jersey stood at 3,958,700. New Jersey had only regained 49% of jobs lost. New York regained 126%, Pennsylvania 78% and nationally 78%. [BLS.gov, Accessed 9/20/13]

August 2013: New Jersey Ranked 44^th In Job Creation Under Christie, And Lagged Behind New York (23^th), Delaware (39th), Connecticut (38th), Maryland (24th) And Pennsylvania (42nd).  New Jersey's total non-farm employment grew from 3,805,700 to 3,958,700 from January 2010 to August 2013. The numbers were seasonally adjusted. New Jersey's growth rate was 2.81%, lower than Pennsylvania at 3.40%, Connecticut at 3.80%, Delaware at 3.79%, Maryland was 4.70% and New York at 4.77%.  [BLS.gov, Accessed 9/20/13]

New Jersey Poverty Rate Reached A 52-Year High In 2011. Poverty in New Jersey continued to grow even as the national recession lifted, reaching a 52-year high in 2011, according to a report released today. The annual survey by Legal Services of New Jersey found 24.7 percent of the state's population — 2.1 million residents — was considered poor in 2011. That's a jump of more than 80,000 people — nearly 1 percent higher than the previous year and 3.8 percent more than pre-recession levels…. The report — the seventh issued by Legal Services — defines being poor in New Jersey as a family of three making less than $37,060. That's twice the federal poverty rate because New Jersey's cost of living is among the highest in the nation." [Star-Ledger, 9/8/13]

2009 CANDIDATE CHRISTIE WOULD HAVE RUN AGAINST 2013 GOVERNOR CHRISTIE'S RECORD

2009 Christie: New Jersey Suffered From The Highest Unemployment Rate In 33 Years, The Highest Tax Burden, The Highest Property Taxes, Going Up $1k On Average, And Needed A New Governor. "9.7% unemployment, the highest in New Jersey in 33 years, and the worst in the region. The highest tax burden in America on each and every New Jersey citizen. The highest property taxes in America, going up as much as $1,000 on average per household in the last four years. 200,000 jobs now nearly lost, nearly 200,000 just this year. New Jersey is in crisis, we are in crisis because we're taxed too much. Because we spend too much, and because we borrow too much. But you know, hope can be real again in New Jersey if we have a Governor that will come in and make the tough choices to cut spending. Hope can be real again if we cut income taxes across the board and cut business taxes." [Christie, New Jersey Gubernatorial Debate, 10/1/09 (video available)]

2009: Christie Pointed Out New Jersey's Unemployment Rate Was "At Least 0.7 Of A Percentage Point Or Higher Than New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware And Connecticut." "Christie calls Corzine's policies a "failure," and points to the unemployment rate as proof. He noted that in August, New Jersey's unemployment rate was at least 0.7 of a percentage point or higher than New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Connecticut." [Herald News, 10/18/09]

2009: Christie Criticized Corzine For Running Attack Ads While The State Was "Facing The Worst Unemployment Rate In The Region." "Calling Tuesday accountability day, Christie criticized Corzine for spending $25 million on negative, attack ads at a time when the state has the highest property taxes in the nation and is facing the worst unemployment rate in the region. Christie said Corzine represents higher taxes, more spending and more government programs." [Eastern Express Times, 10/31/09]

CHRISTIE'S CLAIMS TO CONTROLLING PROPERTY TAXES OMITS HIS CUTS TO PROPERTY TAX RELIEF THAT RESULTED IN 20% HIGHER TAXES FOR THE AVERAGE NEW JERSEY RESIDENT

Philadelphia Inquirer: Christie's First Ad Touted "No New Taxes For Anyone" But Christie "Christie Cut Into Tax Credit Programs, Which Effectively Raised Taxes On Some." "Viewers will see the phrase 'no new taxes for anyone.' But, to balance budgets, Christie cut into tax credit programs, which effectively raised taxes on some." [Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/2/13]

Gloucester County Times Editorial: "Christie's Flat Out Wrong When He Tells You That He's Not Raising People's Taxes" And He Should Be "Taken To Task If The Full Rebate Cuts Stick And He Tries To Keep Wearing That 'I Didn't Raise Taxes' Halo." "Though we're with him on most of the cuts, Christie's flat out wrong when he tells you that he's not raising people's taxes. Even if municipalities and school districts don't raise property taxes by a single penny, the planned suspension of state-funded rebates until at least April 2011 blows a hole in the wallets of middle-class households and senior citizens…But when Christie wants to effectively take $800 to $1,200 in rebates from so many households, with no guarantee that the funding will return, he has no right to say 'we are certainly not increasing the tax burden we place upon our people ... .' That's simply not true. Christie should be taken to task if the full rebate cuts stick and he tries to keep wearing that 'I didn't raise taxes' halo." [Editorial, Gloucester County Times, 3/17/2010]

5/13/13: Columnist Moran Headline: "Christie Fires Blanks At Study On Rising Property Taxes." [Columnist Tom Moran, Star-Ledger, 5/13/13]

Columnist Tom Moran: Christie, "Faced With A Compelling Study Showing That The Property Tax Burden On Average Homeowners" Rose Nearly 20 Percent "Gov. Chris Christie Lashed At The Author Of The Study While Failing Utterly To Refute The Findings." "There he goes again. Faced with a compelling study showing that the property tax burden on average homeowners in New Jersey has risen by 18 percent since he took office, Gov. Chris Christie lashed at the author of the study while failing utterly to refute the findings. The report on NJ Spotlight, written by Mark Magyar, considered the impact of the governor's decision to reduce rebate payments by billions of dollars. The governor promised during the campaign that he would restore the rebates, but once in office, did exactly the opposite. So even though property taxes are rising more slowly, the burden has grown because the rebates have been scaled back so sharply." [Columnist Tom Moran, Star-Ledger, 5/13/13]

Christie's Record Property Taxes Rose 18.6 Percent In His First Three Years, Compared To Just 6 Percent In Corzine's Last Three Years. "Net property taxes in New Jersey rose 18.6 percent in Gov. Chris Christie's first three years in office, compared to just 6 percent in Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine's last three years in office, a New Jersey Spotlight analysis shows.." [NJ Spotlight, 5/6/13]

·     5/12/13: Star-Ledger Editorial Headline: "Christie's Bogus Spin On Property Taxes." [Editorial, Star-Ledger, 5/12/13]

CHRISTIE CUT NEARLY $1 BILLION FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THE LARGEST PER PUPIL SPENDING CUT IN THE NATION – WHICH NJ SCHOOLS STILL HAVE NOT RECOVERED FROM

Christie's $820 Million In Education Budget Resulted In 81 Percent Of Districts Planning On Cutting Staff, And Of Those 42 Percent Saying They Expected Class Size To Rise As A Result. "The school's dilemma marks a statewide trend as districts say aid cuts have meant staff reductions that in turn have led to larger class sizes. A survey by the New Jersey School Boards Association last summer, conducted after Gov. Chris Christie slashed school aid by $820 million, found 81 percent of responding districts said they intended to reduce teaching staff. Of those, 42 percent expected class size to rise as a result. … With a 2 percent cap on property tax increases coming next year, class size may increase further, West Orange School Superintendent Anthony Cavanna said."  [Star Ledger, 11/28/10]

·     Christie's FY11 Education Cuts Were The "Largest Yearly Decline Of Any State" Of Public Per Pupil Spending. "Per pupil spending for public elementary and secondary education fell in fiscal year 2011 – the first ever recorded annual decline, according to Census Bureau data released today. In all, the 50 states and the District of Columbia spent $10,560 per student, with more than three-quarters funding salaries and employee benefits. The decline represents only a 0.4 percent reduction from 2010, but it's the first year-over-year decrease since the federal government began recording data in 1977. Public spending fell by $873 per pupil in New Jersey, the largest yearly decline of any state, followed by Illinois (-$860) and Maine (-$820). A total of 21 states reported spending drops from 2010." [Governing.com, 5/21/13]

NJ Spotlight: Schools "Actually Received More In Overall Aid" In Fiscal Year 2010, And Now "Districts Are Getting Close To Returning To Those 2010 Totals Under Christie's Latest Budget, But The Financial Wounds Were Deep" And "Few Would Say They Have Healed." "It's not easy to tell whether this is the most generous education budget in history or one of the most egregious, given the rhetoric coming from both sides in the debate. Actually there is a bit of truth in each. The governor is in full reelection mode, pitching the state's investment in school aid as the highest ever. And strictly by the numbers, the amount is indeed the most the state has directly paid. But that's hardly the full picture. In fiscal 2010, schools actually received more in overall aid, helped by an additional $1 billion in federal stimulus money. The year after, without that help, Christie made deep aid cuts to schools, leading to unprecedented layoffs and decimated programs. Three years later, districts are getting close to returning to those 2010 totals under Christie's latest budget, but the financial wounds were deep and with a 2 percent tax cap in place since then, few would say they have healed." [NJ Spotlight, 4/09/13]

The FY14 Budget Would Leave 477 Schools, Or Just Over 80% Of Schools With Less State Aid Then They Received The Year Before Governor Christie Took Office. "The vast majority of NJ school districts have yet to recover from Governor Christie's $1.1 billion cut in state aid in his FY11 budget.  A new analysis by ELC shows that, even with the Governor's slight aid increase proposed for the FY14 State Budget, 477 districts will remain below the level of state aid they received the year before the Governor took office. In the 2010-11 school year, Governor Christie cut state aid to districts in an amount equal to 5% of their total operating budgets." The New Jersey Department of Education said there were 590 school districts in New Jersey. [Education Law Center, 4/4/13; New Jersey DOE, Accessed 9/2/13]

CHRISTIE'S CLAIMED HE BALANCED FOUR BUDGETS, WHICH WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED

PolitiFact: "New Jersey's Constitution Requires A Balanced Budget Every Year." [PolitiFact, 8/28/12]

Wall Street Journal Political Diary: "For Instance, Mr. Christie's First Large Ad Buy Touts The Four Balanced Budgets He's Signed, As If The State Constitution Didn't Require A Balanced Budget…" [Political Diary, Wall Street Journal, 5/7/13]

PolitickerNJ: Christie Claimed Four Balanced Budgets During His Term But "By Law The State's Budget Must Be Balanced, So Christie Has Not Had A Choice." "The release also links to articles refuting the governor's claims that he has presented four balanced budgets during his term.  By law the state's budget must be balanced, so Christie has not had a choice." [PolitickerNJ, 5/1/13]

President Obama's Weekly Address 10/6/12:Congress Should Keep America Moving Forward

WASHINGTON, DC—In this week’s address, President Obama told the American people that as a nation we are moving forward four years after the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. While there’s more work to do, America’s businesses have added 5.2 million jobs over the past 31 months and the unemployment rate is at the lowest level since the President took office. To keep our country moving forward, Congress should act on the President’s plan to keep taxes low for 98% of the American people, rather than holding it hostage to give more budget-busting tax cuts to the wealthiest 2%. Congress should cut red tape so responsible homeowners can save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage by refinancing at lower rates, and act on the President’s proposal to create a veterans jobs corps to help our returning heroes find work. It’s time for our elected leaders to get back to work to help the middle class and build our economy from the middle-out, not the top down.

Faces Of The 47%

Awesome great-grandma



Successful business owner



Born without arms



Full-time grad student



I live a very modest lifestyle

President Obama's Weekly Address 3/31/12: Passing the Buffett Rule So That Everyone Pays Their Fair Share

WASHINGTON, DC— In this week’s address, President Obama calls on Congress to pass the Buffett Rule, a principle of fairness that ensures that millionaires and billionaires do not pay less in taxes as a share of their income than middle class families pay. The President believes our system must ask the wealthiest to pay their fair share, while protecting 98 percent of Americans from seeing their taxes go up at all. That is why the President proposed the Buffett Rule, which will help make our system reflect our values so that all Americans get a fair shot, play by the same rules, and pay their fair share.

As A Matter Of Fact ....What Do Taxes Pay For? A Better Quality of Life for Our Children

January 25th, 2012, by Jon Whiten Published in NJPP Blog: As a Matter of Fact ...





While it’s a well-worn cliché that “nobody likes to pay taxes,” one question isn’t asked often enough: what do those taxes pay for?

According to a new national study, they pay for a higher quality of life for our children.

Investing in Public Programs Matters: How State Policies Impact Children’s Lives, released last week by the Foundation for Child Development (FCD), finds “a strong relationship” between state tax rates and the overall quality of life for children.

The report’s key findings are that “higher state taxes are better for children,” and that “greater investments in government programs are strongly related to better quality-of-life for children in a state.”

The report, along with the annual KIDS COUNT data book that ranks New Jersey fifth — comes as states around the country, including New Jersey, are reacting to fiscal crises with austere, cuts-only spending plan, and it shows the folly of such an approach.

“Although states are currently revenue-starved, this is exactly the wrong time to reduce taxes,” says FCD president Rudy Takanishi. “The revenues generated by taxes should be used to invest more in the education and health of our children. Policymakers must recognize that the cost of shortchanging children today is too high a price to pay in the future.”

There’s good news here for New Jersey: the Garden State ranked first in the nation on the Child Well-Being Index, barely edging out Massachusetts. This finding, based on 2007 data, reaffirms the need to resist further cuts to education and other crucial public programs.

The stakes — our children’s well-being, and our state’s future prosperity – couldn’t be higher.

NJPP Monday Minute 1/10/11: NJ EITC: Governor's No Tax Pledge Ignores Poor Working Families

Amid the celebrating about extending federal income tax cuts to everyone in the year ahead, New Jersey is ringing in the new year with a substantial tax increase. Not to worry, though, the only ones who will be paying more in taxes are those who can least afford to pay more.

The state saved $45 million in the current year budget when it slashed a tax break given to families scratching out a living just above the poverty line. This tax break called the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) provides a credit to working poor families against the tax they might pay on the income they earn. The New Jersey EITC is calculated as a percentage of the federal EITC. The state reduced that percentage last year to 20 percent from 25 percent of the federal credit (a 20 percent cut), starting January 1, 2011.

This change will result in a $300 loss to a single parent raising two children with a minimum wage job that pays $15,000 a year. That amounts to more than one week's pay. Even with the extension of federal tax cuts in Washington, working poor families in New Jersey will be less well off in 2011 than they were in 2010.

While the Christie Administration said the state could not afford to sustain the 25 percent credit to the poorest families in the coming year, the Governor and the Legislature have been willing to increase tax credits to major corporations by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Here's just one example of many. Through the Urban Transit Hub Tax Credit program, the state approved three 10-year tax breaks that will benefit Wakefern Corporation, which operates the Shop-Rite chain of grocery stores. Wakefern itself received a $29.2 million grant in August and will benefit from another $15.7 million grant to its landlord. In December, it received a third grant for $58 million. Wakefern certainly must have been pleased to get these tax breaks. Especially since all it had to do was locate three warehouses in Newark and Elizabeth, which it might have done anyway. The state, on the other hand, will lose up to $103 million in corporate tax revenues over ten years if Wakefern fulfills the grant requirements.

Tax credits are set up to encourage certain behavior. The governor and legislators choose to believe that offering tax credits to corporations will encourage them to do what they otherwise might not do. They are even willing to give away billions of dollars with little proof that these incentives cost more than they benefit the state.

Evidence does exist that the EITC encourages people to work rather than accept welfare. By leveling the playing field for families at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (that's $36,620 for a family of three in 2011), it encourages them to work. The credit is designed to help offset the high cost of living in New Jersey (which ranks fifth among all states) and compensates them for paying a disproportionate share of their income in regressive taxes, like sales and property taxes.

Gov. Christie pushed for and the Legislature approved a cutback in the EITC despite the opposition of working parents who depend on these funds to support their children and in the face of objections from advocacy organizations representing these families. It was the wrong thing to do at a time when so many poor families are struggling.

New Jersey has become a state that cuts taxes on millionaires and corporations but raises them on the state's poorest working families. The EITC is a good investment for New Jersey's workers. In the coming fiscal year, the governor and the legislature should find the $45 million necessary to help people help themselves.

President Obama's weekly Adress 11/6/10 :Priorities on Taxes

President Obama lays out his priorities for the coming discussion about tax cuts, calling for compromise but making clear he cannot accept $700 billion in deficits or an increase in middle class taxes.

It's Official, Special Budget Meeting Scheduled For Monday In Middletown

It's Official! Monday night August 30th during a special meeting of the Middletown Township Committee, the Township operating budget will be introduced to the public.

The following announcement was posted on the Township's website:

August 30, 2010 Special Meeting

Notice is hereby given that an “Open Public Meeting” of the Township Committee of the Township of Middletown is hereby scheduled for:

Date: Monday, August 30, 2010

Time 6:00 PM Budget Meeting

Place: Middletown Town Hall

Conference Room
One Kings Highway
Middletown, NJ 07748

KNOWN ACTION ITEMS:
Introduction of Amendment to the 2010 Municipal Budget (Public Hearing to be held September 7, 2010 at a Regularly Scheduled Workshop Meeting)

These items are subject to change, information will be updated on our website.

I would expect the meeting to be short in length with not much oppertunity for the public to make comments - that will have to wait until the workshop meeting on Sept. 7th.

That however, shouldn't be a reason for interested parties to stay home. This meeting is of significant importance to residents who feel that they are being taxed out of their homes by the Republicans that sit in the majority on the committee, the new tax rate will be announce and residents will then be able to figure out what their property taxes for 2010 will end up being.

Middletown ranked in the “Top 100 places to live in United States, but what does it mean?

Money Magazine recently came out with its annual list of the “Top 100 places to live in United States” for 2010; kudos goes to Middletown for once again making the list at #89 and being the fourth town from New Jersey to make the list this year. With this honor, Middletown has now found itself on this prestigious list for the third time in the last five years; previously Middletown made the list in 2006(#50) and 2008(#86).

In determining Middletown’s spot on the list, MONEY Magazine sighted a strong sense of community, its low crime rate, great school system and the abundance of cultural and leisure activities available to residents, which makes Middletown a really wonderful place to raise a family and for that reason, I consider myself truly blessed to call Middletown home.

In a press release announcing Middletown’s third appearance on MONEY’s Top 100 List, Mayor Gerry Scharfenberger is quoted as saying “The designation speaks volumes about our success in maintaining the highest quality of life possible”.

But does it?

What does this ranking really mean? Does it really merit the praise when NJ Monthly Magazine ranked Middletown as only the 134th (down 20 places from its 2008 survey) best place to live in New Jersey and only the 10th best place to live in Monmouth County back in February?

Both magazines used crime rate, school performance and proximity to services as leading indicators for their rankings. MONEY seems to have placed more emphasis on the superficial like “air quality” and leisurely activities, whereas NJ Monthly used more tangible criteria such as population growth, home values, property taxes, land development and unemployment rates to determine its ranking, which I believe leads to a more honest assessment of Middletown. It’s no wonder then, that there was no press release in February praising NJ Monthly for its brutally honest appraisal of Middletown’s standing.

Like good politicians do, Scharfenberger wasted little time attempting to take credit for the news from MONEY Magazine even though he had little to with its findings, unless of course if you consider Middletown’s decline in the survey.

Since Scharfenberger has been in office, Middletown’s ranking in MONEY Magazine “Top 100 Best Places To Live” went from #50 to #86 to #89 -- a 39 point decline. During his first term we saw a 36-point decline.

It seems that Mayor Scharfenberger and the Republican majority are eroding the quality of life in Middletown. If he and his friends were doing a good job we should have been ranked #31 by now. The Township is trending out of the Top 100.

Seeing that the quality of the school system was a leading indicator in the survey and that the mayor’s much publicized battle with the teacher’s union and the Middletown Board of Education over the school budget this past May, may have had an effect on the Township’s place on the list, let me put it another way. Scharfenberger’s municipal 'Best Places' report card shows a grade point average declining over three marking periods with 11 other cities having a lower GPA and 88 with a higher GPA. He has essentially moved Middletown to the bottom half of the last quarter, of the best places to live.

Since Gerry Scharfenberger and his Republican majority have been in office, our municipal taxes are up over 25% and moving upwards, to over 30% if the currently proposed budget is adopted on July 19th.

Here’s a question that should be asked of the people at MONEY Magazine: What does it cost in individual tax dollars to be ranked 89; do the better ranked cities get more bang for the taxpayer buck than lesser ranked cities? It seems that the Middletown residents as a whole were paying less in taxes when we were ranked at 50 than we do now; what happened?

Whatever happened to the dedicated and disciplined pursuit of excellence? I guess it wasn’t part of the survey.

Here's An FYI On That Call For Change On The Middletown Board Of Ed.

Below is the text of another email that is circulating around that was written by Middletown resident Kathy Noah. This email is a direct counter to the anonymous letter posted by someone calling themselves " Jersey Strong" that was making the email circuit tour and was posted on another out of town, local blog that has been known for its right-wing views:

Yikes! People like this scare me!

I did a little checking into this group/person. The word around town is that the 3 guys running are fairly well tied to some of the people on the Middletown Town Council. I don't have a big problem with that, except I hear that the Town Council is looking to have more say over the Board of Ed. I don't think people should be voting in less qualified people just so it will make life easier for the Town Council. I think we should be voting on the best qualified person for the job. I guess using the word "job" is not right considering it is not a paid position.

This person/group who wrote this seems to think that the Middletown Board of Ed should be breaking the union. This is a very big fight, and it would need to be addressed at the state level. When the contract with the teachers was negotiated it was considered to be fair and comparable with other local teacher's union contract. The BOE did request that the teachers consider taking a pay freeze, the the local union leadership did not allow the teachers to take that vote. The union does have the right to work out their contract as written. I do think you will see some changes in the upcoming contract negotiations.

The idea that "you don't like how life is, so let's bring in all new people" is just crazy. The fact that our Real Estate taxes are tied to the quality of the education that our children receive is another broken system. This is not something that the BOE or the Town Council can fix. It must be dealt with in Trenton. We need people who are smart and dedicated, and they must have the children's needs at heart. I think the people on the BOE work very hard to do that. I question the dedication of some of the gentleman this person is recommending. Mascone did not show to the 1st Candidate Forum, nor did he even have the courtesy to respond that he would not be attending. Brand also did not attend the forum, but he sent a very long statement that did not really say much. Hard to know what you are really getting with them.

They also seem very concerned with the number of Administrators that the district has. They do plan to cut 7 (15%) with the proposed budget! These people have big job descriptions including curriculum, state testing, staff oversight & evaluations, student discipline, security, oversight of sports & clubs, etc. I am sure years ago you expected 1 vice principle to handle all the discipline for 1,500 students, and security was not a big issue. Times have changed. In a corporation of 1,500 employees, 10,000 daily guests/students and 17 buildings how many managers and Vice-Presidents would you expect to have?

One of the only things I do agree with them on is nobody wants their taxes going up. Unfortunately, New Jersey is in a fiscal crisis, and Governor Christie has forced large cuts everywhere. He decreased state aid to our school alone by 34%, and some schools lost all state funding. We all pay a lot of income tax to the State of NJ, so I personally have a hard time understanding how this is fair. Considering these drastic cuts the Board of Ed did their best to come up with the proposed budget.

Voting down the school budget on April 20th will still mean Middletown will lose 72.5 teachers positions, 7 Administrators, 20 Para professionals, etc.

If this budget fails, these cuts will still happen and even more will be cut. That means more teacher cuts and larger class sizes. Most likely all Middle School sports and clubs will be eliminated. Maybe the Freshman teams will be lost too. To stay on a sport you cannot miss too many days of school & you must keep your grades up. Not all kids are the perfect academic student by nature. We need ways to keep them interested in going to school and learning.

APRIL 20th VOTE YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4 PM - 9 PM

NJPP: Taxes not to blame for NJ wealth exodus

Last week the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce and the Community Foundation of New Jersey released a report they commissioned from the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College. This report ties the wealth of households to migration patterns in and out of the state.

It finds between 2004 and 2008, there was a moderate increase in the number of wealthy households moving out of New Jersey and a decline in the number moving in. The net effect of this, according to the report, is a substantial decrease in household wealth and charitable capacity.

The business community and various politicians are using this study to make the claim--yet again--that this exodus of wealth is a reaction to taxes such as New Jersey's millionaires' tax. They make this claim despite the fact that the analysis doesn't include taxes as a variable and the report doesn't mention them--except to say that only 6 percent of the wealthy people moving out have incomes over $500,000 (the starting point of New Jersey's highest tax bracket).

The report looks at wealth (real estate, stocks, bonds, 401ks and vehicles) because it says investable assets are a more important determinant of charitable giving than income. But the study is being used as proof that there is a rush of wealth AND income out of New Jersey.

To the contrary, the number of high income households in the state has increased sharply during this period.

Actual tax return data from the New Jersey Department of the Treasury confirm that the number of tax returns with incomes of $500,000 and above has been growing. The current recession may tell a different story in more recent years, but in 2007 (the most recent data available), 48,500 tax returns were filed with incomes of $500,000 or more. This is nearly twice the number (25,500) filed in 2002. In each year since 2002, the number of these high income returns has grown. Their collective income in 2007 was $76.9 billion and they paid $4.6 billion in taxes to the state. Although their income was taxed at a top marginal rate of 8.97 percent, they paid an effective rate of 6 percent ($4.6 billion/$76.9 billion).

This report only looked at a ten year period--and that period just happened to be the decade when New Jersey increased income taxes on the state's wealthiest residents. But what if the report looked at a twenty year period? It's possible the data would show the same trend--younger people moving in have higher incomes and less wealth; older people moving out have more wealth and lower annual incomes.

What this study might suggest is that New Jersey doesn't import wealthy people; it creates them. The report finds that the people moving to New Jersey are younger, earn higher incomes, and are more frequently employed than the wealthy people leaving. It makes perfect sense that younger, mid-career people would have less wealth because their retirement accounts would be small and their houses are probably mortgaged.

In contrast, the wealthy people leaving tend to be older, are more commonly retired or widowed and have more wealth. It's likely that these older retired people are taking with them retirement and investment accounts and the cashed out untaxed capital gains from houses that have appreciated in value many times over the original purchase price.

New Jersey is, quite frankly, a rich state. We all know that.

In 2007, we had the second highest median household income in the country (after Maryland). We ranked third after the District of Columbia and Connecticut in per capita personal income. And in the same year, New Jersey and Maryland tied as the states having the highest percentage of households (7.1 percent) with at least $1 million in assets. These factors are unlikely to change overnight.

BUDGET SERIES

Understanding the state budget and its underpinnings are critical to any policy decision that will be made in this state. State budget decisions affect the lives of every one of the 8.7 million people living in New Jersey. They influence how much we pay in income and property taxes; the condition of our schools and healthcare facilities; the access we have to job opportunities in the public and private sectors; and the sense of security we have in our communities.

Starting next week, NJPP's Monday Minute will begin a series devoted to issues surrounding the New Jersey state budget. Our plan is to start with a discussion of the state's current and long term structural deficit; the taxes that support state and local spending; and simple analyses of the programs that these taxes support. Each week we will focus on something new.

NJPP Monday Minute: 1/4/10

Every year, New Jersey gives away billions of dollars through tax credits, deductions, exemptions and cooperative agreements that - once enacted - seldom get reviewed. No one knows how much money the state forgoes because few people have been interested - until now.

Despite not being found in any appropriation line in the state budget, these "spending initiatives" represent spending. Unlike the spending that takes place in the budget, which must be reauthorized each year, these credits, deductions and exemptions - collectively known as tax expenditures - are part of the tax code. Because this form of spending is largely invisible, it gets little scrutiny.

Every program that receives no scrutiny has the potential to crowd out more important programs. That is because every dollar the state doesn't collect is a dollar that must be raised by increasing an existing tax rate, taxing something else or providing fewer services.

Like traditional spending, tax expenditures are policy decisions that reflect government's priorities. They cost state treasuries money in much the same way as direct spending for schools, health care or road construction. The only real difference is that instead of collecting and paying out money, this money isn't collected at all. One might think this is more efficient than collecting and redistributing revenues. That is the case only if the benefits of these programs are reviewed annually along with programs requiring a direct appropriation.

Some tax expenditures are good and reflect taxpayers' beliefs. In New Jersey, for instance, we do not collect sales tax on food, clothes or prescription medicine. These policy decisions cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars a year in revenue, however most New Jersey residents would agree with those choices. There would be less agreement about the decision to grant special interest tax credits to a specific business, especially if that business costs the state a lot and there was no proof of its overall benefit to every resident, not just to the few recipients of those credits.

Another costly example of a tax expenditure is the long-standing agreement between New York and New Jersey that taxes residents' income based on where they work instead of where they live. New York State actually tracks and publishes this information. Based on their reporting, in 2004, that agreement cost New Jersey about $1.5 billion a year, a number that is likely higher now. Under this agreement, most people who live in New Jersey but work in New York pay more to New York than they would to New Jersey. New Jersey has a different agreement with Pennsylvania. As a result of that agreement, New Jersey and Pennsylvania incomes are taxed where a person lives, not where he or she works. Whether that is a benefit or a cost to New Jersey is unknown because we don't collect and analyze the information.

Although most states track this information and make it public, New Jersey does not. This would change if a bill introduced by Sen. Barbara Buono, chairwoman of the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, becomes law. Sen. Buono's bill would require the governor's annual budget message to include a tax expenditure report, which would list each tax expenditure and its cost to the state.

In all likelihood, the totals would be significant. Washington State, for example, has reported that its 567 state and local tax expenditures cost nearly $99 billion a year in lost revenue; Oregon reports that its 362 expenditures cost nearly $29 billion; and Illinois' 214 cost nearly $7 billion.

The idea of reporting this information is nothing new, even in New Jersey. In January 2006, Gov. Corzine's transition team recommended that the state produce a tax expenditure report. Later that year, the state Division of Taxation developed a basic framework for a report, identifying 121 sales and use tax exemptions and exemptions, 44 gross income tax exclusions and 28 corporate business tax exclusions. Then, in November 2007, Gov. Corzine signed a bill into law requiring the state treasurer to produce an annual report with information on development subsidies. This report has yet to be produced.

Understanding how much the state spends through its tax code is even more critical now, as declining revenues will force New Jersey lawmakers to make more difficult decisions about how to spend taxpayer dollars. A tax expenditure budget is not a panacea. It will not automatically provide all the money the state needs to resolve its precarious fiscal situation. But, it will lead to more information, which can only lead to better choices, more appropriate spending and more accountability.

It is time for New Jersey to join the 41 other states, the District of Columbia and the federal government in recognizing that informed choices, whether they are direct appropriations in the annual budget or revenues foregone through the tax code, are ultimately better choices.

Patrick Short: Why This Election In Middletown Is So Important

In this video, Middletown Democratic Committeeman Patrick Short, discuss why this years election in Middletown is so important for everyone.

If Short were to loss this election, the two party system of checks and balances will be no more after just 2 years.

The Middletown GOP will go back to its old ways, that is a super majority Republicans will once again reign over the township.

During the past 2 years with Democrats Patrick Short and Sean Byrnes presiding on the Township Committee, township government has become more open and transparent, bonding and spending has decreased and there has been no more rubber stamping of pet projects that only benefits a few.

Todays To Do List

1. Pay my taxes.

2. Attend a teabagging party.

 Oh, I can't wait !

Middletown Budget Workshop Meeting Tonight

If anyone is interested, I would like to point out that there is a budget workshop meeting planned for tonight in Middletown down at town hall.

If you would like to express your concerns about how your tax dollars will be spent or have any thoughts on how Middletown can trim excess dollars from the upcoming budget, now is the time to speak up. 

It doesn't matter what political affiliation you subscribe to, this is about how your money is spent. Let the Mayor and other committee members know how you feel: 

DATE: Wednesday, January 14, 2009
TIME: 7:00 PM BUDGET WORKSHOP MEETING

PLACE: Middletown Town Hall
Main Meeting Room
One Kings Highway, Middletown, NJ 07748
at which time the following matters of business will be conducted:

7:00 PM BUDGET WORKSHOP SESSION

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO FOLLOW

and any other matters that may come before the Township Committee.

  

Tony "the fibber" is at it again

In a letter published on-line at the Atlantic Highlands Herald today Tony "the fibber" Fiore is at it again. His penchant for not telling the truth is becoming legendary.

The "fibber" wants us to believe that Democratic Candidate for Township Committee, Pat Walsh, is single handily responsible for the taxes in Middletown being raise due to her work as a member of the Board of Education.

"Fibber" Fiore make no mention that his running mate for Township Committee, Pam Brightbill has voted to raise the tax rate in town the last 3 years by 15.9% !!

He doesn't make any mention to the fact that the Township Committee owes the BOE $56 million in deferred taxes, which is the real reason behind the BOE increases over the years. 

So tell us Tony, exactly how do you intend to lower taxes in Middletown? 

Middletown Republican again completely Misrepresents the facts with his letter

I usually take a look at the "Letters" section of the online newspaper Atlantic Highlands Herald each day to see what area residents are talking about. The Herald is quite often used by both the Middletown GOP and Democrats to express their opinions about the latest issues in town and as the campaign season heats up more and more false reteric gets thrown around by the Middletown Republicans.

Case in point; This moring when I logged on to the sight a letter was posted a few days ago that was written by one Michale Vitkansas. 

Vitkansas is a Monmouth County Republican Committeeman who also happens to have been appointed to sit on the Middletown Community Affairs Council by the Republican controlled Township Committee. Vitkansas's point behind his letter is to try and score a few partisen point against Patrica Walsh, who happens to be one of the Democrats running for a seat on the Township Committee this year.

Vitkansas attacks her for being a member of the Middletown Board of Education for the past number of years and tries to argue in his letter that it is solely Walsh's fault as to why taxes in Middletown have been raised so much over the past few years.

Like so many in the Republican party, when Vitkansas can't rely on the truth to attack an opponent he relies on completely false and misleading allegations.

So this morning when logged on the the AHH to check out the "Letters", I was pleasantly please to see a very rapid response by  Paul Jansen. Jansen set the record straight.

Jansen correctly stated in his letter that Walsh is just 1 of 9 members of the BOE, and that the residents of Middletown have to approve of the budget before any tax increases are allowed. So to hold Walsh directly responsible for the increase in school taxes is a completely false allegation.