Raise the Gas Tax Says Wisniewski(D-Middlesex)

According to the Press of Atlantic City, Assemblyman Wisniewski is taking a stand against the Governor's plan for Toll Roads (whatever that is because we haven't seen it). He wants to raise the tax on gasoline. Is it possible for a legislator in this state to act like a mature adult?

Have we seen any substantive headlines discussing cuts in ANYTHING? No. The only articles I have seen are of the Governor bemoaning his inability to increase spending because the electorate are signaling that responsibility is order.

You can read the entire article here.

---

Governor Staff Tantrum Over Asbury Park Press Photo

Apparently, this photo cause all the Governor's men heartburn over the weekend according to Joe Strupp at Editor and Publisher. The Asbury Park Press Article this weekend brings up some very good points about the Governor's lack of transparency and his secret toll plan.

Apparently they don't have PR people at the State House as a Corzine flack formally complained to the paper about the clearly doctored photo, thereby ensuring that it received wider circulation and is now lasting into Tuesday instead of a funny one day thing. Way to go guys! Amateur hour, NJ Style!!!!

Read the Editor and Publisher article here.

---

Rutgers Study - Peer Review and Fake News and Opinion

A recent N.Y. Time regional op-ed declared the Rutgers Study null and void. You can read the entire opinion piece here. I only found out about the now discredited report when looking at a blog that declared the issue settled.

At this blog we have reviewed the report produced from the team at Rutgers in painstaking detail. We have commented on it as well. So I was very intrigued to say the least. So I went in search of the details behind this op ed piece.

The author is from the New Jersey Police Perspective which from what I could tell is an advocacy group essentially espousing left of center positions. One only needs to read their press releases attacking Walmart, the virtue of the NJ Income Tax and how NJ has shortchanged the poor, higher education seekers, 1 in 5 NJ residents etc. But that is frankly not relevant to this topic.

I looked for the detail behind the alleged facts in the NY Times op ed. Guess what? There aren't any. Unlike the team who produced the Rutgers study, Forsberg doesn't see fit to publish any of her data for it to be reviewed by others. When she talks about immigration, does she mean legal or illegal immigration? We don't know because she won't tell us.

And frankly, just because she says it doesn't make it good for me. Sorry.

---

We Predicted it Here First - Corzine's Next Whopper!

You knew his sudden fiscal conservatism couldn't be based solely on doing his job and worrying about the deficit. The governor announced today a new school funding plan. In today's newsday.com :

Gov. Jon S. Corzine is expected in the coming weeks to unveil a new public school funding plan that likely will need to pass state Supreme Court scrutiny because it will change how the state funds 31 poor, mostly urban school districts.


New Jersey already spends more than ANY OTHER STATE for School spending according to the US Census Bureau for 2003-2004 at $12,981 per student. In addition, New Jersey also actively seeds needier students into wealthier school districts through as variety of programs designed to create parity throughout the state.

But that appartently isn't enough:

"The current method leaves too many children out of luck simply because they live in the wrong zip code," Corzine said. "And the failure to provide sufficient state school aid has put a disproportionate property tax burden on the backs of far too many homeowners."

Folks, forget the words you hear from the Governor. He is preparing to announce a program that will likely ensure an increase of property taxes that will disproportionately impact the school districts outside of urban areas. What I am telling you is that he may be responsible for the biggest property tax hike for most of you in 4 years. Bet on it.

Read the entire article here.

---

Our Prancing Governor

One of the headlines in The Times today was "State Employees Grumble" regarding the Governor rescinding the Friday after Thanksgiving as a paid holiday. While I sometimes am less than enthused by the Governor's efforts at fiscal conservatism including this one, I am even less impressed with a representative of one of the unions he is forced to deal with. From the article:


Union leader Rae Roeder took umbrage at the governor's public tour of the facility.


"He didn't have to prance in there and say: 'This is important, see why I have to do this.' Can't he just say thanks for doing a great job?" said Roeder, president of Communications Workers of America Local 1033.

I don't think the Governor pranced. Nor do I think he is unappreciative of his employees. Maybe Mr Roeder aught to grow up and realize that the Governor is not a personal piggy bank for him and his members. Here's hoping that Mr. Corzine can find a few more Roeders to take umbrage.

Read the entire article here.

---

Death and Taxes - And the Death Tax

Every time I hear someone like Warren Buffet espousing the importance of higher taxes on people like him, I am left dumbfounded. He is a supporter of higher death taxes. Of course, given the way he has his money structured, he would never pay it. However, Brian Reardon recently wrote an excellent article in the National Review regarding this subject. This isn't a rich guy topic alone:

The congressional debate over the death tax has been hijacked by the super-rich and those who are obsessed with the super-rich. That’s too bad. The ramblings of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates Sr. — extremely wealthy men who stand against the permanent repeal of this burdensome tax — are a distraction from the real issues in the debate.

Reardon succintly puts the entire debate into simple terms everyone understands:

To its very core, the death tax is bad public policy. You don’t know when you’ll pay the tax. You don’t know how much the tax will be. And you don’t know if your estate will have the liquidity necessary to pay it when it comes due.

Read the entire article here.

---

The Party of the Rich. Not!

An interesting story hit the news both in print and the airways yesterday. For some time, certain politicians have been declaring another group of politicians "the party of the rich". I have always questioned that moniker as the people I know never seem to be as rich as say, John Edwards-someone who typically levels the accusation.

Fox News cited a recent study by the Heritage Foundation:

A review of Internal Revenue Service data conducted by Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at Heritage — a conservative think-tank — found that Democrats control the majority of the country's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions, and that more than half of the most affluent households are located in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.

Party of the rich indeed!

Read the entire article here.

---

TELs: Tax-and-Expenditure Limits

Via the National Taxpayers' Union, an interesting survey by the Rockefeller Institute shows that TELs cause reduced spending and revenue (i.e., taxation) growth while having "no statistically significant impact of state-level TELs on spending in four other functional areas: education, health and hospitals, quality-of-life and amenities, and public welfare."

Read more.

---

New Jersey Inheritance Tax - The Tax of the Week

It is always useful to identify taxes in the state so counterproductive that they deserve special mention. We last examined the recent state sales tax adjustment. Today's examination involved the Inheritance Tax.

So, first the good news. If you die and have a direct family member, either wife or child, you have no issue. New Jersey through its infinite wisdom feels that you don't deserve to have your inheritance taken away.

If you are anyone else, for example a brother or sister in a family farm...the rules change a bit. You get a 25k head start before the state takes 12 percent away from you. Of course, this is where my blood starts to boil.

The state of New Jersey in all likelihood has taxed every cent you have made your entire life while running your farm (or any other business or personal endeavor). You may have had multiple family members work your farm but they might as well be someone on the street. Given that the real estate associate with most family farms in this state is worth more than the farm itself, it triggers the family to get seriously concerned. For example, take a family farm on 20 acres near prime development property, the farm is worth at least 3-4 million dollars in real estate. The state says...give me 12 percent.

This now means that this poor family owes $360,000 minimum to continue the farm. This is a farm they may have worked for 200 years but still owe the money. And you wonder why we have so many farmers selling out to developers. Another casualty of the tax culture of New Jersey.

---

An Open Letter from IBD to Warren Buffett

There's nice tight writing here by Frank Ryan at Investor's Business Daily to show Warren Buffett why his position on taxes is wrong. Here's a sample:

I would presume that you have also decided to receive dividend income to help reduce your taxable income and thereby your effective tax rate. What your argument fails to mention is that your dividends are paid after taxes paid by the corporation of as much as 33%. The reason that reducing taxes on dividends is necessary is because they are taxed twice previously.

Read the whole thing.

---

Happy Thanksgiving and the Grinch

Heartfelt wishes to everyone in the State of New Jersey for a Happy and Healthy Thanksgiving!!! Safe travels to all!

That being said, I can't help but wonder about Governor Corzine and his Friday work policy for Thanksgiving. He apparently will travel to California today and get back in time for work tomorrow. He will be visiting various state employee locations to show them he had to work to so they shouldn't mind.

This entire thing is a little off. It comes across as a show to convince taxpayers that he is serious about fiscal responsibilty. But the strange thing is that if he was serious, he would be looking to offer a significant number of these state employees retirement packages to cut the budget long term. As with most of the fiscal policy of this Governor, I always feel slimed as it never seems serious. And it is frankly unfair to offer pretend fiscal frugality on the back of a bunch of loyal state workers. They haven't created these problems, they just applied for and took jobs as offerred and do their jobs as best they can.

How about it Governor? Can we get serious at some point?

---

Corzine Finally Found Something to Cut!

Scott Goldstein from NJBIZ today brings us the story of the Governor cutting back business incentives for media companies passed in the legislature last year. From his article NBC Watches as Corzine Cuts Tax Credits:

The bill (S-2526), authorizing $20 million in tax credits, overwhelmingly passed in the Legislature last spring, but was reduced earlier this month to $5 million by Gov. Jon Corzine, who says the state is in no fiscal condition to give more cuts.

So the Governor sees the need to cut $15 million of the credit out. Not bad although the people of Englewood Cliffs who were counting on luring NBC may be a bit nervous right now. As credits go, this one seems pretty benign and unfortunately for the state, incentives like these will be given by other states and cities to lure business. I remember years ago when I lived in Texas, the Dallas area was willing to offer anything to any large company to move to the area. Consequently, Dallas has transitioned its business community from Banking and Oil to a multi-faceted telecom, retail, services and technology marketplace very well suited to the future economic marketplace.

But why is this Governor so agressive at cutting this program while spending 274 million on a downpayment for stem cell research and development (NOT authorized by the Citizens of NJ) while promising another 400 that the public rejected by referendum?

The tax credit initiative was created by a popular bi-partison vote in the legislature says Goldstein:

“If there ever was a case for an override, this would be the one,” said Sen. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen), a sponsor of the bill that passed 37-0 in the Senate and 71-8 with one abstention in the Assembly.


Media companies actually make profits that can be taxed by the state. R&D operations funded by the state don't. Interesting fiscal conservatism.

---

November 19 - The Gettysburg Address

I know this has nothing to do with taxes but as somewhat of a history buff, I can't help but post on the anniversary of what was perhaps Abraham Lincoln's most famous address. The next time you hear a politician speak for a long time and say nothing think about the following speech:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

---

Star Ledger - Property Tax Hike Smallest in 6 Years

What does is say about a state and a governor when a key newspaper runs a page one story of government self congratulation for ONLY increasing the Property Tax 5.5 percent. Said the Star Ledger:

In the first test of sweeping property tax reform enacted after a seven-month special legislative session, homeowners taxes rose 5.5 percent this year, the smallest increase in six years but still higher than a 4 percent goal set by Gov. Jon Corzine.

Let's start with the obvious. The legislature identified a problem. Property taxes are too high. They decided to try to fix it. So their goal going in was...drum roll...higher property taxes but not quite as high. That is a joke. Their initial goal was not to reduce taxes but to make them not grow as much? I do not see how any Senate or Assembly member could possibly face their constituents after that complete lack of seriousness.

Let me give a practical example. If my roof started leaking 6 years ago and has been getting worse each year I would have to address it. I make a plan to fix the problem and decide on a new roof. The entire process takes 7 months. If ONE DROP leaks through that roof when it is done, THE ENTIRE PROJECT WAS A FAILURE! Just imagine if while placing the buckets on the floor to catch the water I tell my wife...Honey, we used to have 8 buckets down and now we have just 5. And I set a goal of 4 so I was really close. What do you think my wife would say to that?

You can read the entire article here.

Here is a suggestion to our illustrious state legislators.
Step 1. Identify the problem: Property Taxes are too high.
Step 2. Identify the Obective: Reduce Property Taxes by 10 percent
Step 3. Create an action plan to solve it.

Some ideas: Look at every level of spending. Stop expanding the public payroll. Analyse our assistance programs and prioritize them. We don't need to be the most generous state in EVERY category. Restructure the state debt. Stop Borrowing more money to add to the debt.

It's time to grow up Mr. Governor and the Legislature. This is going to take Big Boy and Big Girl decisions. Are you up to it?

---

"Mitt Romney's Thinking of a Number", But At Least He Thinks

"Chris Kelly lives near Los Angeles, and writes for television." So says his bio on the Huffington Post, anyway. And if these are the kinds of credentials needed to write for HuffPo, it's no wonder that they end up with drivel of the kind they do.

Drivel, in this case, refers to his post "Mitt Romney is Thinking of a Number". Romney says that he wants to spend 4% of GDP on the military.

Forget the fact that Kelly doesn't know the difference between a paradox and an infinite sequence.[*] I just want to point out his logic for disliking the number 4%:

Now, you probably thought the way to come up with a figure to spend on defense was to consider either:

a) What you could afford
b) A threat

or

c) The cost of some weapon you wanted to buy

Which is why you don't work in a think tank.

The way you figure out what to spend on defense is to think of a number. In this case, four.

Now, I have to ask, have you ever heard of a liberal politician using this kind of logic to decide what to spend to stop global warming, or to expand the S-CHIP legislation to people who make 300% of the poverty line, or to provide additional Medicare / Medicaid / Social Security / whatever benefits?

Didn't think so.

And forget the fact that there may be very good reasons for that number. Kelly doesn't even ask why Romney might think that 4% is a good number. Kelly fails to mention that the Heritage Foundation report that he belittles shows that military spending in the cold war averaged about 7.5% of GDP. No, he'd rather just bash Romney for not explicitly doing something that liberals never do anyway.

-----------------------

[*] Paradox vs. Infinite Sequences: Kelly ends the post by attempting to appeal to infinite regression under the heading "Romney's Paradox":

Let's say President Romney gets to the end of the fiscal year, looks at the GDP and realizes that he hasn't spent enough money on freedom. He immediately writes a check for another nuclear zeppelin. But when you calculate GDP, you include government spending. So the price of the zeppelin raises the GDP. And now Romney has to buy something else. Perhaps a tarp. But that raises the GDP, too.

When Romney adds 4% to the GDP, it goes up 4%, and then he has to add .4% to that, and it goes up again, and then he has to add .04%. And so on, forever, without reaching his goal.

But this isn't a paradox, and (with a hat tip to my anonymous commenter) it isn't an infinite regression. A paradox is like "square circle" or "good Chris Kelly post". Infinite regression is like a child asking "but why?" every time you give an answer.

Kelly's formulation of Romney's problem is just a basic mathematical equation (though I can't do the notation here): it's GDP times the sum of .04*(1/10^x) over all integers x. It would take someone who remembers college-level math better than I do to solve it, but the equation is easily solved.

---

State Democrats Job Growth - For State Workers

From today's Trentonian:

"Total non-farm employment advanced by 1,400 jobs in October to reach a seasonably adjusted level of 4,107,700, a record high level" said the report.

Sounds great. New jobs are always a good thing and I am not one of those people who quibble over the quality of the new jobs. Solid opportunities for people to earn is valuable from the local hard working people at the fast food restaurant all the way to new office buildings in Princeton. However, there appears to be another side to the story:

But the GOP lawmakers say the picture isn't as rosy as it sounds. "The private sector is experiencing a net loss, so that's a problem" Haines said.

Kyrillos said the fact that 86 percent of the new jobs are in the public sector shows "New Jersey continues to lag in the creation of private sector jobs"

The issue here isn't really what the two parties are quibbling about. It is really that for a state with a looming 4 billion dollar budget deficit, is it really prudent to be adding public sector jobs.

The New Jersey Department of labor list job growth in the public sector from 2001-2006 at an increase of 57,800 jobs. In the private sector is was just 3,700 jobs. That doesn't include the new report so the 3,700 jobs is lower when including 2007. Keep something in mind. The Corzine administration makes a habit of promoting dubious good news or alleged fiscal cuts right before they propose raising taxes. Not sure what their latest idea will be this week but you can be sure it will include more money from your pocket.

---

Jon Corzine Risks Re-Election to Increase Tolls!

From the Associated Press

November 16, 2007 -- ATLANTIC CITY, NJ - New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine yesterday said he's willing to risk losing re-election by increasing highway tolls to try to resolve state fiscal woes.

The governor continued to refuse to detail how much he wants tolls to increase, but said he'll present a formal plan in January.


Corzine is up for re-election in 2009, but said, "Make no mistake. I am willing to risk losing my job if that's necessary to set our fiscal house in order and get New Jersey out from the debt burden constraining our future."

When I first saw this I thought it was a hoax. The Governor once to convince us that he really wants to get New Jersey's fiscal house in order. So in order to act like a real fiscal leader he is going to....drum roll....RAISE TOLLS!!!!!

Are we kidding here? Does no one in New Jersey state government have any guts to look to reducing costs for anything? This is the heart of the fiscal problems in the state. Cutting spending is never an option, only increasing taxes and fees. When the state elected Corzine as Governor, everyone thought they were getting a businessman. Unfortunately, I think we got a philanthropist in training. Only problem is that he is generous with other people's money.

---

Soaking the Rich

Jonah Goldberg penned an excellent editorial in the NY Post today entitled "The Trouble with Soaking the Rich". He opens his article with a telling quote from Hillary Clinton's chief economic advisor:

The question is should we be giving an extra $120 billion to people in the top 1 percent?

Goldberg goes on to explain the thinking behind this comment:

Translation: It's the governments money and anything left over after Uncle Sam picks your pocket is a "gift".

This article really makes me think. Here I am on a train with thousand of other people on their way to work in Manhattan. I leave my family early in the morning and try to arrive home in time to say goodnight to my children. And yet, according to Hillary, the money I am earning belongs to her to spend, not me.

The article goes on to talk about who actually pays taxes:

The top 1 percent of wage earners already pays 40 percent of Federal income taxes; the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers only about 3 percent.

Given the facts there is really something unseemly about the rhetoric from some on the politicians when they continue to say that the system is unfair to poor people. The system is definitely unbalanced and it is unbalanced against those who actually pay taxes. He drives all of his points home in the closer:

I don't know what the best tax rates are, for rich or poor. But I'm pretty sure that it's unhealthy for a democracy when the majority of citizens don't see the government as a service they're reluctantly paying for - but as an extortionist that cuts them in for share of the loot.

A truly scary thought. You can read Jonah's column here.

---

Two Items from the Star-Ledger

Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, made some interesting points in this op-ed on Sunday. Here's the conclusion:

At its root, the message from Tuesday's election was not that the state's fiscal house needs to be put in order, but that voters' fiscal houses -- their property tax bills -- need to be put in order.

It's undeniable that property tax reform is tied to the state's fiscal soundness. But leaders who continue to talk about the state budget and "financial restructuring" separately from property tax reform show they really did not get the message of Tuesday's election.

---

Check out Rob Gebeloff's Stat Attack column about The Hidden Open Space Tax Hike:

But here's a little secret about local open space taxes: In dozens of towns, local voters who approved paying their penny-rate open space tax have seen their actual open space tax bill double -- and in most cases, nobody asked their permission.

Worth reading. And again, a reason to distrust people who hide a 50% budget increase behind the words, "We need that extra half a penny."

---

Financial Order, Fiscal Sanity, and Stem Cells

Today's Star-Ledger reports on a protest in which pro-life and anti-tax forces rallied to protest the $270 million already allocated to building the stem cell research centers in New Jersey.

Does that sound off to you? The referendum that we just voted down was for $450 million. So what's the $270 million?

Hmmm. Let's look back at the stem cell issue.

From the AP, December 19, 2006: Corzine to Sign Stem Cell Bill

Governor Corzine is slated to sign into law a bill on Wednesday that would authorize the state to spend 270 million dollars to build research labs, start a cord blood collection program and fund cancer research. . . . State officials predict the bill will boost the state economy, and also help biotechnology companies in the state while attracting others.

That's right. In case you've forgotten, the $450 million was Corzine's second round of financing. The $270 million was already allocated. Again from the AP:

The money [$150 million] to build the [New Brunswick stem cell] facility was included in legislation signed into law in December 2006. The law also authorized $50 million to build stem-cell research facilities at the New Jersey Institute of Technology in Newark, $50 million for a biomedical research center in Camden, $10 million for research at the Garden State Cancer Center in Belleville, and $10 million to do the same at the Eli Katz Umbilical Cord Blood Program in Allendale.

Unless I've got something wrong, that means that Corzine wants the total NJ investment in stem cell research to be $270+$450=$720 million. (Is it any wonder that we don't trust them when they say things like, "I only want half a penny"?) And Corzine knows that we really want to spend this money -- despite what our votes told him -- and we just don't realize it yet. Just ask his spokeswoman.

Lilo Stainton, a spokeswoman for Gov. Jon Corzine, said the governor maintains his staunch support of stem cells and views it as a powerful potential economic engine. To Corzine, she said, the message of last week's election is that voters are calling for "financial order and fiscal sanity."

Lilo has me in stitches. Let's look at the justification for the funding, as stated in a press release issued by Assemblymen Cohen, McKeon, and Voss:

According to a 2005 analysis by Rutgers University, New Jersey's stem-cell initiatives will reap an estimated $1.4 billion in new economic activity for the state and create upwards of 20,000 new jobs over the next 20 years.

I'm assuming that this is the best economic support that the sponsors could come up with -- and it makes me conclude that Democrats are bad at math.

For a supposed benefit of $1.4 billion over 20 years, we were supposed to pay $720 million.

This is what passes for a "powerful potential economic engine" among Democrats. This is what Corzine means by "financial order and fiscal sanity." Indeed, he says, "This is an investment that has a very clear payback."

Governor: we'd be better off if you put the money into T-bills.

I mean, really, if the investment is worth so much, why aren't private businesses flocking to invest? Why can't Corzine support businesses by supporting fiscally conservative legislation instead of putting the New Jersey government in the business of stem cell research? Does he really think that our government is so efficient that we will create facilities more cost-effectively than, say, Merck?

I tend to agree with Steve Lonegan, "the conservative Republican mayor of Bogota in Bergen County":

As for the idea that such an investment could lead to the creation of a vibrant cell culture economy in the state, he dismissed that as a "phony promise."

(I'm not the one who inserted "conservative" in the description of Mayor Lonegan, by the way. As usual, only conservatives are highlighted by ideology; very rarely will you see a Democrat labelled as "liberal" or even the even-more-inappropriate "progressive". But I digress.)

One more thing. Check out this headline: "Corzine Calls for Budget-Slashing Plans". Of course, this article came out before the election, on October 13. Corzine was trying to look fiscally responsible -- like he was making tough decisions. Here's the lede:

With a $3 billion budget deficit looming for next year, the Corzine administration has asked state departments to begin finding ways to cut as much as $3 billion from the next state budget, administration officials said.

Someone -- an unidentified state official -- even said, "The intent is to address the shortfall through reductions in spending, not increases in taxes."

We can pretty much see through that facade, now, can't we? Governor Corzine tells us we need to slash $3 billion from the state budget while also telling us that we should borrow half a billion dollars -- no, make that three quarters of a billion -- to sponsor unproven technology.

No thanks, Governor. If I ran my house that way, I'd go bankrupt. In fact, I have to run my private house conservatively in part because you run your public house so liberally.

By the way, and for the record: I'm opposed to stem cell research on moral grounds, too. I don't talk about it on this blog because this blog is about taxes; however, I don't want anyone to misconstrue my silence on the moral issue as tacit approval.

---

Obama Wants a Tax Increase

Just the title of this article is another silly parody of real news. It is just like Warren Buffet proclaiming that he should be paying more taxes (while he has spent plenty protecting himself from the government he claims to want to donate more to). But Obama thinks that by raising the Social Security tax we will solve all of the issues with Social Security.

According to Obama:

"I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected," the Illinois senator said.

People like MYSELF. Of course Mr Obama forgets that he isn't really in the Social Secutity retirement systen at all. He has a US Federal Government Pension, unavailable to the rest of us. His comments are at the very least disengenous and I will leave it at that.

See the entire article here.

---

Today is Veteran's Day

Today is a good day to thank a Veteran for their service to our country. How much do you know about the origin of Veteran's day? The American Legion of Barnegat NJ has a brief history here.

To All Vets, Thanks for your service!

---

Will Democrats Heed the Lesson

Tom Moran from the Star Ledger wrote and excellent opinion piece today. The article entitled "A Sobering Lesson for Democrats" brings up some interesting points that we have made here earlier this week. He mentions the 71% to 19% poll that said NJ residents supported spending state money on stem cell research. Said Mr Moran:

So the fact that those same voters soundly rejected the stem cell initiative on Tuesday's ballot was a shock, maybe even a turning point.

The meaning was unmistakable. Voters no longer trust Democrats to handle their money.

They're not ready yet to switch partners and hand power to Republicans. But they want their Democrats to sober up.

These are serious words that anyone in the leadership of this state should internalize. Of course, no one is talking about shrinking government yet despite a 3 million dollar deficit looming. Most telling is the quote in the article by Governor Corzine earlier this year:

"I didn't run for public office to be a number cruncher or to play Scrooge," he said during a revealing moment of his budget address earlier this year.

An interesting point. My answer to the Governor is that no one elected you to run the state like a immature 16 year old either. Leadership means making hard decisions. If the state is living beyond its means, it is incumbent on the Governor to fix the fiscal problems before he decides to go on a spending spree like a drunken sailor on shore leave. If Mr Corzine is not up to the job, perhaps he would be willing to step down and allow some other politician who is capable of making hard decisions take over. Better to be Scrooge than Donald Duck!

---

Is Governor Corzine in Denial

Driving home this evening, I was informed on the radio that New Jersey residents still want the state to spend 400 million dollars on Stem Cell Research. I continue to be stunned at the arrogance of our elected officials. They told us last week that everyone in the state wants to spend big money on Stem Cell research. Last night the voters said something different. In case the Governor missed it, here was the result courtest of NJ.com:

Question - 2-Stem Cell Research - Ballot Issue
New Jersey - 6210 of 6289 Precincts Reporting - 99%
Name Votes Vote %
No 680,828 53%
Yes 601,343 47%

Of course, the governor also admitted that the voters want Trenton to get its fiscal house in order before even considering additional debt. He also said that the real problem is that voters in the state didn't know there was a payment plan. Oh, and he also said the it was low voter turnout.

Let me tell you something Governor Corzine. The people voted to turn this down because we are SICK AND TIRED of Trenton's spending our money with no accountability . The real issue in this election was taxes and corruption. Let me help you Mr Governor. Lower taxes and stop making excuses for your friends who keep getting arrested at an alarming rate. Pretend just for a little bit that you understand what we, the citizens and voters in this state are going through.

---

Hillary Wants to Pay For Your Home Improvements

...as long as they involve energy efficiency.



I'm in San Francisco watching MSNBC. All NBC stations are having week-long push under the theme "Green is Universal". [Note to America: Green is code for "conservation based on socialism". Yes, there are alternatives. Check out Newt Gingrich's Web site for an example.]



Anyway, Bob Vila just came on to talk about Hillary's Climate Change proposals, one of which is to spend American taxpayer dollars on looking at middle-to-low income housing and have the federal government identify problems with them and fix them up.



Apparently the towns and states don't take care of their own: the Feds do. At least if Hillary wins.



On another note, I've heard more about Democratic candidates, complete with references to "Swift Boating' and the like, than I've ever heard. The only mentions of Republicans were those that denigrated them or took for granted that their ideas were stupid -- and that from a host, not a guest. If you were wondering about the bias of MSNBC, this week should eliminate all doubts.

---

Tonight is Not a Normal Election Night

I have been following the early results on the ballot questions and have almost written three posts in the past hour. I am very surprised by what I see in some traditional corners that vote against fiscal responsibility. Are we on the verge of a real live voter revolt? I am not sure yet but needless to say I am SHOCKED by early returns on the Stem Cell issue. The polls declared NJ voters as supportive at 3-1 margin. It is currently losing in key Democrat counties. Not sure if any of this will hold up as I can't see precinct but I am watching closely.

As a matter of fact, all of the money issues are getting battered. Maybe my apathetic post concern earlier is wrong.

---

Taxes, Corruption Big Issues In N.J. Election

I ran across this article that pretty much sums up today's election on WNBC's web site. What is a little sad is that the general consensus is that voters are concerned over taxes and corruption however a very small turnout is expected despite the fact that every Senate and Assembly seat will be contested.

An interesting comment from the article:

The campaigns have been dominated by debate over America's highest property taxes, which average $6,330 per homeowner -- twice the national average -- and ethics.

Hope isn't lost however. The reporter found a gentleman who seemed to get it today at the voting booth:

Joe Albite, a 50-year-old marketing manager, who was voting at Florence V. Evans Elementary School in Evesham, said his main concern on Election Day was taxes.

He said he was voting for a ballot measure to use a sales tax increase to offset property taxes and against the stem-cell research measure and also against another ballot initiative to borrow money to preserve open space.

From Joe's lips to everyone in New Jersey's ears. I voted this evening with my young son in the hope that he will take this freedom of ours as seriously I do.

Read the article here.

---

Even the NY Times thinks NJ Borrowing out of control!

I came across an article written in the NY Times the other day entitled "NJ Ballot Asks NJ Voters to Allow More Debt". Normally, the Times is pretty supportive of spending when it is for it's pet projects (like Stem Cell Research) which in one of the debt options we get to choose today.

---

Election Day in NJ

Every time someone tells me that their vote doesn't matter it reminds me of something that happened to me ten years ago. I lived in a New Jersey beach town at the time. My neighbor was a school teacher and stopped me a few days before election day and asked me to support the school budget on Tuesday. I took the time to research what they were looking to do and was convinced that their budget was sound, the additions to it were desperately needed (frankly to support the influx of needy kids that flowed into the district in winter) and the potential increase in my tax bill was reasonable to pay for it.

I went to work with the intention of voting when I got home. Unfortunately NJ Transit did not cooperate on my way home with my train arriving an hour late. I got to the polling place 5 minutes too late to vote. The vote on the school budget wound up tied, which resulted in the budget being rejected. Voting matters. ESPECIALLY in these local races.

Get out and vote!

---

Tomorrow is Election Day

Even though there are not national or statewide races this election day, make a point to go out and vote. All of the tax policy in this state has been established by the political positions at stake tomorrow. Pay attention. Evaluate the candidates positions on spending and taxes. If you do a little research, you may find out some things that you didn't know. Make sure we are electing responsible people. Just remember that in the State of NJ, if you aren't specifically trying to get the tax situation under control, you are part of the problem. So if a candidate doesn't have a position on against taxes, you can bet they are for raising them.

If you need information on specific races, polling places or a whole range of other election related topics, visit this web site provided by the State of NJ. This is money well spent.

---

Charlie Rangel Unplugged!

I am currently watching Charlie Rangel on CSPAN being interviewed regarding his tax plan. Some of the highlights I have heard from him tonight:

1. Alternative Minimum Tax. Charlie says it is unfair, was a bad tax when instituted and is a bad tax now. Now that it has grown out of control and will impact far more people than originally intended, he wants to get rid of it. Of course, he mentions that everything that this House will do is "paygo" which to Charlie means that if he eliminates this unfair tax, he finds another revenue source. Problem is that he is talking about future revenue!!!!!! The big problem in Washington is even though they agree that this tax is growing like a weed out of control, they are entitled to the tax revenue that this tumor of a tax is likely to bring NEXT YEAR!

2. We should all thank Charlie for his proposal to reduce the corporate tax to 30.5% from 35%. The real issue here is that Charlie doesn't want to talk about the fact that many economists debate the entire concept of corporate tax at all. Efficient organizations will always either figure out a way to reinvest and avoid a tax or pass the tax burden on to the consumer. Inefficient organizations pay the tax and the burden falls on the investor class (a significant percentage of which are everyday folks in unions, individual investors and retirees).

3. Because the Senate has more stringent debate rules, it is acting as an unfair check on the House. This one is a real howler! Read the Constitution Charlie! The House was always intended to host the more emotional debate. The Senate was specifically designed to ensure that our laws were subject to a more deliberative process than the House could ever provide. Charlie should propose to amend the Constitution and fix this horrible injustice! (tongue placed firmly in cheek)

4. Not one mention is about reducing expenditures. It is all about switching tax buckets, not controlling spending.

5. Republicans are proposing a flat tax. Charlie says this is bad because it impacts poor people regressively. The problem here is that Charlie is not paying attention to what is happening to people at the lower end of the scale right now. They are already being taxed regressively. His issue is REALLY that politically a flat tax would not allow him and his colleagues to claim they weren't taxing anyone by making the "progressive" tax plan more aggressive at the high end.

6. The Administration is proposing nothing in terms of taxes or the alternative minimum tax. I know it is popular in congress today to repeat falsehoods on both sides and hope the media makes them true. Both sides have proposed solutions to this problem for 5 years. There are no points to be awarded to either side on this one.

---

"Fiscal Responsibility" and Being "Revenue Neutral"

In thinking about Charlie Rangel's proposal and the upcoming Essex County Parks budget vote, I was once again struck by the attitude of politicians (particularly Democrats).

To wit: a tax cut in one place requires a balancing tax increase somewhere else, but a spending increase in one place doesn't require a balancing spending cut anywhere. The former shows "fiscal responsibility" by being "revenue neutral"; the latter is "voluntary" (Rangel's word) "support" of an "extra half a penny".

Why can't an increase in (say) the parks budget also be revenue neutral?

As individuals, we can't run our households this way because we can't set our own salaries. Our budgets are revenue neutral. If we buy a fancier car, we have to forgo that nice stereo we wanted.

We have to actually choose between all the things we'd like to do. But we let politicians avoid making those tough decisions. They get to have it both ways.

We need to start making New Jersey stick to a finite budget. Politicians should get paid to make hard decisions rather than run away from them.

This may be something that most people in the country can't imagine ever saying, but I love New Jersey. I'm not a native, either; it's just a super place to live, for a lot of reasons. I'm willing to pay for a lot of the great things New Jersey provides.

But I can't trust politicians who think that budgets should only increase. I can't even relate to people who think that cuts are always inappropriate, whether in taxes or in budgets. We need to be smarter than that.

---

Who pays taxes in NJ?

While researching tax payments in NJ, I recently came across an interesting study from 2003 on who actually pays. The sad thing is that while it is always popular to think that various taxes soak the "rich" (whoever they are), in reality, it is the poorest in the state of NJ who pay. NJ ranks in the top ten of states who for regressively taxing the poor. See the whole article here.

The key taxes in this study are sales tax and property tax. Both are much higher than in 2003. So when we listen to politicians comment about who the tax man comes for...the answer is that he comes for.....ME!!!!!!!! Regardless of who I am.

---

Cutting Half of a Hundredth of a Percent of the Budget is Too Hard?

If you ever wonder why I get pretty hard-line about tax increases, you don't need to look any farther than Essex County Executive Joseph DiVincenzo.

Right now, [Essex] county collects 1 cent per $100 of assessed property and DiVincenzo has asked voters to support a referendum that would increase that amount to 1.5 cents per $100 of assessed property. For the owner of a house valued at $100,000, the contribution to the open space trust fund would be $15. . . .

"Our penny has done so much," he said. "If you like what we have done in the last 4 1/2 years, please support us. We need that extra half a penny."

Don't get me wrong. Taxes at the local level are good and necessary for some things, and that includes parks. And parks are important for our quality of life. Elizabeth Moore of the Star-Ledger lists some of the things this money has been used for:

. . . restoring 21 park buildings, modernizing 35 basketball and tennis courts, upgrading 17 baseball and softball fields, improving seven walking tracks and football/soccer fields. . . . [also to] build the county's Environmental Center in Roseland, rebuild Garibaldi Hall,... renovate the Turtle Back Zoo's dining pavilion and other habitats in West Orange, plant 2,000 new cherry trees at Branch Brook Park in Newark and Belleville, and purchase Kip's Castle.

These are legitimate local concerns, and we should democratically decide whether to fund these projects or not.

We currently pay one one-hundredth of a percent of our assessed value to fund these things. Small number, right? DiVincenzo wants to raise our property taxes by what he calls an "extra half a penny" -- just half of a hundredth of a percent. Sounds good -- ignore for the moment that he's really asking us to increase his parks budget by fifty percent -- because it's a teeny tiny percentage increase in actual dollars, right?

But that raises a question: if it takes only this teeny tiny percentage to fund the parks that contribute so much to our quality of life, why can't we squeeze the teeny tiny percentage out of something else? Are there no inefficiencies to squeeze out of government?

DiVincenzo can't cut something in his County budget by one half of one hundredth of a percent to make room for this new expenditure?

Why exactly is that too hard?

---