Does Corzine Really Not See The Irony?

Here's the headline from BusinessWeek:

Corzine Condemns ‘Too Damn High’ New Jersey Taxes as He Exits

...and here's the lede:

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, making his valedictory speech to lawmakers, said the most critical issue facing them and his successor boils down to this: “Everyone’s property taxes are too damn high.”

Super. Too bad he's about four years too late. He says other good things, too, that he should have been talking about for years. But keep going:

Corzine, 63, a Democrat with a Democrat-controlled Legislature, said his single term succeeded in adding children to the ranks of state-run health care programs and expanding access to preschool even as the U.S. suffered the worst recession since World War II.

Huh? In the same speech, he's going to say that our taxes are too high and that he's proud of the way he increased our fiscal obligations during a recession?

---

New Jersey Tax Revolution Roundup: Taxing, Spending, Salaries, and Solar Energy Incentives

Some odds and ends for you to browse this evening.

From the Courier-Post Online:

The new head of Burlington County government has pledged to continue the tax-cutting policy of the county board of freeholders.

Freeholder-Director Bruce Garganio of Florence also said he was truly grateful for the opportunity to serve as director in his freshman year on the board....

"We owe this to the taxpayers of Burlington County," Bruce Garganio of Florence said of trimming the county property tax levy further during his state of the county speech at the yearly reorganization on New Year's Day in the Olde Burlington County Courthouse.

The Press of Atlantic City discusses how New Jersey's "incentives" (that's taxpayer money being funneled into selected businesses) are affecting the renewable energy market. Three highlights: Business owners with no experience, operators of solar facilities earning ten times the market value for energy (60 cents per kilowatt vs. 6 cents), and a lot of startups but no regulation.

The major attraction has been the state's financial incentives, which New York-based Global Solar Center called "the most generous incentives for solar power in the nation." The most notable one may be the Solar Renewable Energy Certificate, a credit-based system adjusted in 2006 to capitalize on the state Energy Master Plan's mandate that 20 percent of the state's energy come from renewable sources by 2020.

The use of the solar certificates has helped New Jersey grow its solar power industry in a hurry by making solar energy profitable.

Operators of solar energy sites, from large commercial facilities down to homeowners, can earn credits for every 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity they produce. The credits can be sold to other energy companies seeking to meet their renewable energy goals.

With a solar certificate, an operator of a solar facility can earn 60 cents per kilowatt hour, said Joe Isabella, director of the Vineland Municipal Electric Utility. In the traditional wholesale energy market, a kilowatt is worth about 6 cents.

In another sign of local fiscal pressure's ability to roll back entitlements that have gone too far, The Daily Journal reports that Millville is preparing to renegotiate its union contracts. It's pretty clear why:

Millville reached a contract with its firefighters in September 2008. The five-year deal gave firefighters a 3.6 percent raise the first year and 3.8 percent annual raises for the remainder of the contract....

Council 18 members -- who include maintenance workers, police dispatchers, parks and recreation employees, public works employees, utility workers and other City Hall employees -- received 3.6 percent annual raises for three years. The administrators received a five-year contract with 3.4 percent raise each year.

Let's do the math: The median annual salary for a firefighter is about $44,000, according to salary.com. If we started with that salary in September 2008 (it may have been slightly lower, but this is just an illustration of the numbers) then the salaries would be:

Year	Salary
2008	44,000
2009	45,584
2010	47,316
2011	49,114
2012	50,981
2013	52,918

For those of you playing the home game, that's an increase of 20% (((52,918-44,000)/44,000)*100) over the course of five years. Council 18 members see an 11% increase over three years, and administrators see an 18% increase over five years.

The Washington Post tells us that "State and local pensions plans are on path to failure":

Even if pension funds do manage to achieve that magical 8 percent average rate of return over the next 15 years, they will only have an average of 45 percent of the money they need to pay benefits, according to an analysis by state pension expert Kim Nicholl of PricewaterhouseCoopers. The picture for health benefits, which states are generally paying out of current revenue, is even worse.

It's worth reading the whole thing.

The Star-Ledger Editorial Board discusses a plan to tax students at local colleges and universities, highlighting why it's a misguided thought:

In fact, it’s an awful idea that burdens students and lets town officials delay tough spending cuts. It also frays the relationship between universities and towns, which should be collaborating on solutions instead of pointing fingers....

The resolution estimated the average municipality loses about 13 percent of the taxes it could collect "if all property within its borders were taxed." ... But taxing all property within a town’s borders would mean hitting up hospitals, churches and many other charitable and nonprofit institutions. Why should colleges be singled out?

There's more, too: Did you know that Seton Hall, although it's tax-exempt, pays "payments in lieu of taxes" and full taxes on its off-campus property? That adds up to $364,000 -- on top of which, it "contributed $500,000 toward a sports field for the South Orange-Maplewood community." This is a great editorial, not terribly long but very impactful, and also well worth reading.

---

Cherry Hill Courier Post Wants Rebate Checks

In an article this week in the Cherry Hill Courier Post, the writer was promoting the retention of rebate checks for NJ residents due to the lack of reform of the property tax system in the state.

At a New Jersey Business and Industry Association policy forum with 250 business owners in Woodbridge Tuesday, a few Democratic state lawmakers suggested that property tax rebates could disappear entirely next year. The state is facing a projected deficit of at least $8 billion for the fiscal year that starts in July.

If rebates become extinct in 2010, it will demonstrate just how miserably and completely the state Legislature failed in its half-baked attempt to lower our highest-in-the-nation property taxes. Lawmakers put on a big show in 2006 with their special committees and came up with a raft of recommendations for changing the way things work in New Jersey. The centerpiece of their plans was not a massive reduction in the size of government at all levels, which would have lowered property taxes permanently. It was rebate checks.

Gov.-elect Chris Christie said while campaigning that even though rebate checks aren't the best way to do tax relief, he's determined to keep them because they're the only help overtaxed homeowners get in New Jersey.

What puzzled me about this article is that it has no writer listed which would suggest it is editorial. But it isn't labeled as such. So I guess we can call it 'editorial news'. And while the article brings up some points worth considering, it draws a conclusion that Christie should reflexively re-instate the Property Tax Rebate.

We at NJTaxRevolution are always proponents of the reduction of taxes for New Jersey citizens. However, if this system were to be re-instated, it also needs to be seriously re-examined. For example, this program in the past did not provide tax rebates for a significant number of people who actually PAY PROPERTY TAXES while providing REBATES TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T PAY PROPERTY TAXES. And unless Christie intends to completely overhaul this program, he would be much wiser to address the core problem of out-of-control property taxes right after he looks at the state's spending apetite.

Read the entire article here.

---

Property Tax Gimmicks - Lonegan is right!

A recent Christie add attempted to play the typical New Jersey entitlement card by attacking Steve Lonegan's tax plan. The comment in question was where Lonegan called the state's property tax rebate system a "gimmick". The joke here is that Christie's ad people have so little respect for New Jersey voters that they really expect people to get fired up over this. And they are probably correct. New Jersey's voters frankly so routinely vote against their own interests, they are only outdone by Michigan voters.

While you may not agree with Lonegan's tax proposals, he is absolutely correct about one thing. The property tax rebate program is a complete joke. It was instituted to provide political cover for weak politicians in both parties who didn't have the courage to deal with the issues behind property taxes spiralling out of control. It was then perpetuated as a give away program for people who didn't pay property taxes AT ALL. If that isn't a gimmick, I don't know what is.

And kudos for Lonegan for bringing it out. And shame on Christie for acting like a New Jersey Democrat. If you really want to change this state, bad policy like the rebate program need to be looked at seriously.

---

West New York, NJ 27% Tax Increase Nightmare!

Last night we received an email from a reader(We witheld the name, not the writer):

I'm not sure if you've read about a town called West New York, NJ but we've recently been hit with a 27% tax increase. Is this even legal? The town website explains its due to a deficit. Please provide some if any feedback.

Thanks

Before I go on to explain what is going on in the town, I should answer the question. What your town has done is absolutely legal. Towns all across New Jersey have been raising taxes for the past 12 years almost at will. They can raise your taxes property taxes for any reason:

- town expenses go up like garbage pickup
- pension costs for town employees increase
- an unfunded pet projects by a city council
- general budget deficits caused by mismanagement
- on and on and on

In addition to this, the town can through a variety of means increase your taxes not by raising the tax rate but by re-assessing your property for reasons such as building improvements, non-building improvements (a new fence or deck) or because your property value is deemed below market rate outside of a threshold.

Only school expenditures and significant borrowing (I love that one because a town can just spend the money without borrowing and then raise taxes due to the operational deficit) require voter approval. And as most people in New Jersey know of should know, after you reject the school budget the state can come in and declare your rejection of that same budget as invalid (as happened all over NJ last year).

The net is that the only way to force change in your town is to remove the offending town officials via ballot or impeachment if your town charter allows it.

For those of you who have not heard this story, this article from wcbstv.com will make it clear. Here is the gist of the story:

WEST NEW YORK, N.J. (CBS) ― Angry residents in West New York packed a town meeting Thursday to protest a 27-percent tax hike.

Among the residents there was Sila Rodriquez, who said her blood pressure is going through the roof because she can't afford her property taxes.

"[It's] scary because our income is too low," Rodriguez said.

Rodriquez and her husband said they've seen an $800 increase in their property taxes this quarter. They anticipate paying an extra $3,000 this year.

"We have to lose the house because this is unbelievable," she said.

I looked up the town stats (here) on City-Data and found this information to support what is said in the article:

Estimated median household income in 2007: $40,999 (it was $31,980 in 2000)

West New York: $40,999
New Jersey: $67,035


Estimated median house or condo value in 2007: $435,115 (it was $168,900 in 2000)
West New York: $435,115
New Jersey: $372,300

These poor people are well below the New Jersey income level but are well above the state average in terms of housing. I suspect this chart may have something to do with the revenue shortfall. Maybe the local politicians thought this housing value growth was going to last forever and spent as such.




This situation is sad but all too common. It is the result of the absolutely abysmal management of the state, massive government expansion and spending directed by Trenton politicians and questionable spending policies by local governments around the state. It has also been fed by a tremendous amount of corruption at every level of local and state government.

It is also the reason why we started this blog site. It is also the reason that New Jersey needs a top to bottom scrubbing of government.

---

Will NJ Property Tax Rebates be cut?

This just in from Newsday:

Gov. Jon S. Corzine said Friday that he is considering suspending property tax rebates next year as New Jersey faces a multi billion dollar budget gap.

The governor said all options are on the table for his 2010 budget proposal, which he plans to present to state lawmakers on March 10. State budget makers are looking for ways to close an estimated $6 billion deficit. That figure doesn't include federal stimulus money the state expects for budgetary relief.

It was just a matter of time that the Governor would notice that the state cannot afford the homestead rebate program. Last year, he tried to take it away but only pared things back a bit:

New Jersey residents get about $1.7 billion in property tax rebates annually.

Some homeowners saw their rebate checks cut or canceled last year. Those making more than $150,000 got no rebate, and those earning $100,000 to $150,000 saw their rebates decline by an average of $295.

While he said he is considering suspending the property tax rebates for some or all homeowners, Corzine on Friday would make no promises or predictions about next year's budget.

My issue with this program starts with the entire concept. If rebates are needed because property taxes are too high, the state should actually look at why. They would find that the unfunded mandates from Trenton and the wasted suctioning of school funds from non-city school districts into the inner city has put too much of a strain on local municipalities. That in addition to the fact that the state frankly has too much government. Too much local government. Too much county government and too much state government. I have mentioned before in this blog that I have lived in several states and New Jersey extracts more money for the least services of any state that I have lived.

So the underlying motivation for the rebate is to ignore the fundamental problem and patch it by sending out checks to homeowners. This is a kick the can strategy that does nothing to solve the problem, just postpones it to another day. And if that were the only issue with the rebate it would be bad, and irresponsible of our politicians and a demonstration of sheer government incompetence, but it would at least be understandable.

There is a built in bias in the rebate system against people who actually pay taxes in our state. This program has morphed into a giveaway program designed to put out checks ahead of elections to Democratic constituencies. This program provides checks to citizens that DO NOT EVEN PAY PROPERTY TAX. And it has continued to exclude the highest property tax contributors in the state due to income. Sort of a double progressive tax (you pay more for your taxes on income and then pay more for your property tax).

Now, I have heard from people who make the case that property taxes are built into rents but most studies will tell you that the market and location determines rental prices. Frankly, if you are going to make the indirect argument, retail shoppers pay a higher premium on property taxes as local prices for goods sold in retails shops are much more sensitive to property tax costs than rental units.

But the main point is that this program is no longer affordable. My suggestion would be to look closely at the Senior citizens impact and retain the program for SENIORS WHO PAY PROPERTY TAXES. They are often impacted severely for growth in their community. For seniors who rent, no rebate.

It's time for the adults in the room to eliminate their political pay-for-vote schemes and look toward helping New Jersey come out of this fiscal situation a stronger and more vibrant state. The alternative is that we can become Michigan. And that is not a pretty sight.

---

NY Rebates Checks and Bloomberg

The New York Post once again featured the war of words between the Mayor and City Council regarding rebate checks and when they will be mailed out. The debate seems to be posturing with the Mayor on one side wanting an increased property tax and the council looking to tell their constituents they provided goodies. From the NY Post:


"We're continuing to work with the City Council on the issue of the rebate and all of the other budgetary challenges created by the financial crisis," Bloomberg spokesman Marc LaVorgna said when asked whether the checks will go out this month.

Also on the table is a 7 percent property-tax increase, which would raise $1.2 billion annually. The real issue here has nothing to do with rebates(because they aren't actually rebates). In the past 5 years, municipalities and states have used "rebates" as a way to circumvent the tax system to provide election year goodies in return for the politician to return to office. The system has gotten so bizarre that in New Jersey, if you actually pay taxes, you have a much higher chance of NOT qualifying for the rebate than if you don't pay taxes (apartment dwellers ALL get the rebate but homeowners generally don't).

With the city in such dire budgetary straits, this should be a no-brainer. But it don't be. Because the council has to pay the bribe it promised. And THAT is why politics in the Northeast is such a joke. There isn't one brave politician who can do the right thing anywhere.

Read the entire thing here.

---

Corzine: "We're going to fight to hold our education funding"

Thank you, Jon Corzine! Even when times are tough, we should avoid reducing our expenditures on education.

Except he's playing the typical bureaucratic trick: the fight to hold our education funding is actually a fight to expand it by a third of a billion dollars.

Budget troubles endanger $350M preschool plan
Delaying expansion of programs would be last resort, Corzine says
Thursday, October 30, 2008
BY DUNSTAN McNICHOL
Star-Ledger Staff

Mounting state budget troubles may force New Jersey to delay plans for a $350 million expansion of public preschool programs, but such a move would be a last resort, Gov. Jon Corzine told a convention of school board members yesterday.

"We're going to fight to hold our education funding," Corzine told about 500 delegates at the New Jersey School Boards Association's annual workshop in Atlantic City. "That doesn't mean there won't be any cuts. That doesn't mean there won't be any freezes. But it means it will be the last thing on the table."

This is just another example of the Nanny State -- literally, in this case -- expanding even in the face of catastrophic fiscal burdens in the state.

"But wait," you say, "I thought we had to fund pre-K programs for needy students."

You're right, we do, because of Abbot v. Burke. But this gluttonous expansion isn't part of that ruling:

Part of the new school funding formula enacted last year, Corzine's plan would be the state's biggest expansion of preschool for low-income students since the state Supreme Court's Abbott vs. Burke rulings, which ordered universal pre-kindergarten in 31 of the poorest districts.

The plan would take the court rulings a step further and order similar preschool for all low-income students, wherever they live. Depending on the numbers, districts would be required to establish the preschool themselves or contract with outside centers to provide the service for eligible students. The state would pay the tab and estimated 17,000 more students would be served as the program is phased in over six years at an eventual cost of $350 million. [Emphasis added.]

So this isn't court-mandated, it's a Corzine pet project.

Jon Corzine wants to add $350,000,000 in spending. Not expanding the budget will be the last thing on the table.

My jaw drops. It makes me wonder what it's like to be inside Corzine's head.

Well, let me try. He thinks that higher tolls will solve budgetary problems, right? So maybe I should think of it this way: It currently costs $6.45 to go from exit 18W to exit 1 on the Turnpike, so we're talking about 54,263,566 trips down the whole length of the Turnpike. Since we're already using all of the current money from the Turnpike, we'd have to increase the number of trips on the Turnpike by that much.

Somehow I don't feel better.

But I'm still not thinking enough like Corzine. After all, he wants to octuple our tolls. If he did that, each trip would cost $51.60, which would only be 6,782,946 trips.

Now that's a much smaller number. What a relief! And since he'd be forcing most people off of the Turnpike and Parkway, we'd see a massive improvement in our statewide carbon footprint, too! See? Win/win!

I'm trying, people, but I still don't see how he forces himself to ignore the fact that increasing the price of using the Turnpike will reduce peoples' willingness to use it. How does he ignore basic laws of supply and demand?

His mind must be the opposite of his budget: flexible, focused, and disciplined.

My own school superintendent gets mentioned in the piece, too:

Jerry Tarnoff, superintendent of West Orange schools, said he was encouraged that Corzine suggested the preschool funding would only be cut as a last resort. "I am pleased he would like to commit to full funding," said Tarnoff. "Anything less, if the program were to go forward, would make it extremely difficult for the local taxpayers."

Now, Jerry's a smooth politician, and I don't think he would say anything that would irritate Corzine unnecessarily. But look at what he's saying: if the program were to go forward, and the state didn't pay for it, it would be a serious burden for local taxpayers.

So there's the threat of an unfunded mandate to the towns that would increase taxes substantially, whether the towns like it or not.

And I have another question: if it would be a serious burden for local taxpayers to pay for this, who would be burdened if the state funded it?

Those rich guys in Mendham, I guess. To hell with them, though. If they can afford to live near Whitney Houston's birthplace, they should pay for the pre-K programs in West Orange and Edison and Camden. And I hear Neil Cavuto lives there! For Pete's sake, if a Fox News anchor lives in New Jersey, he should pay twice what the ordinary citizen does!

---

Inquirer Special Report: Property-Tax Madness

In Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer, the headline report is on the New Jersey property tax situation and its impact on the citizens of this state. Despite the Inquirers more liberal leanings, they place the blame clearly in the court of the party that has been running the state for the past several years state's ruling party(Democrats):

Nowhere is there a higher average property-tax bill: $6,796 per household, up more than 50 percent in just the last five years.

And that, in a costly nutshell, is why New Jerseyans are some of the angriest taxpayers in America.

The article gets going with this typical story:

Among seniors, the anger is giving way to panic, Tom Yarnall warns. "Are we going to run out of money?" he asked. "Or are we going to run out of heartbeats?"

Yarnall, 76, a retired computer specialist, pays $9,053 in property tax - about one-quarter of his fixed income - on his two-story colonial on Weston Drive in Cherry Hill. That's up from $6,344 in 2002, a 43 percent jump.

"When I retired, I thought I was in good shape," he said. But every year, "I'm taking more and more out of our savings. It will be gone in eight to 10 years."

The article proceeds to document several other stories and are frankly typical from the blog's perspective. Seniors that can no longer afford their homes, long term residents who children will never live in their parents house and municipalities who cannot cope with the cost of running the town.

Some of the reasons they cite as to why we are in such a mess:

New Jersey ranks third among populous states for the number of public employees per capita working for school districts and towns.

With New Jersey's cost of living one of the highest in the country and its labor unions effective, that force of 350,000 is better paid than anywhere but California - on average, $55,000 a year.

The article goes on to discuss many of the issues that we have covered in the past her at NJTaxRevolution. The questionable savings from combining home rule municipalities, the fact that the unions who really run the state are unwilling to concede anything and the overbearing education mandate essentially unfunded by the state.

Can something be done? Sure. Can it be done with the current crop of politicians in the state of New Jersey. No chance.

Read the article here, it is well worth the time.

---

Why Business is Fleeing the State

It's like watching a car wreck in slow motion.

Yep. And he (Paul Mulshine) gives a very nice summary of how the wheels have been coming off.

---

Governor Corzine Delivers His Budget

Here's Governor Corzine's speech in text, audio, and video.

There's also a summary of the budget from the state OMB. The executive summary is about seven pages long; the budget summary runs another 74 pages after that. I'm trying to locate a complete budget, but I'm not convinced that it has been published yet.

When I get the chance I'll try to provide some color commentary. I want to see discipline like Assemblyman Polistina showed -- but I'm not holding my breath.

Meanwhile, Steve Lonegan has already issued a comprehensive response to the Governor's speech. Since it's not up on the Americans for Prosperity Web site yet, I'll reproduce it here.

LONEGAN: CORZINE SHOULD PROPOSE REAL CUTS, NOT A "PHONY FREEZE"

Call your legislators and tell them "This is not enough!" Click here for phone numbers.

For Immediate Release: February 26, 2008
Contact: Steve Lonegan (201) 881-6692

-- Codey did the same "cuts" three years ago.

BOGOTA -- Americans for Prosperity New Jersey Director Steve Lonegan called Governor Jon Corzine's proposed budget a "phony freeze" similar to that done by Governor Codey in 2006 and said the state needs real spending reductions to bring New Jersey back.

"New Jersey state spending has doubled in ten years, gone up fifty percent since McGreevey was elected and even with the alleged reductions will be nearly twenty percent higher than it was when Governor Corzine took office," Lonegan said. "The Governor's proposal does nothing to reduce New Jersey's out of control tax burden, nothing to reduce New Jersey's ridiculous welfare state and nothing to cap the outrageous pensions and other giveaways to public employees."

Lonegan said that Corzine's proposal was deficient and should be corrected with the following steps.

• Immediate layoffs, not "early retirement" schemes that keep employees in the pension system.
• Elimination of "Project Labor Agreements" that drive up the cost of state, county and local government construction projects.
• Stopping billions of dollars in debt already authorized but not yet borrowed.
• Elimination of departments including State, Community Affairs, the Comptroller and the Public Advocate.
• Repeal the 9 percent pension hike passed in 2001.
• End state municipal aid to so-called "Abbott" districts that already receive virtually unlimited school aid.
• Raise the retirement age for public employees to 65 and end longevity bonuses.
• The new war on small towns with less than 10,000 residents must be rejected. These towns are the most efficiently run in the state and Corzine's proposal attempts to eliminate them.
• Stopping the use of "rebate" programs as income redistribution schemes, instead of looking at permanent tax relief.
• Crack down on out of control pensions, lavish medical benefits and order new and recent employees into 401(k) programs.
• Sunset all state regulations for a complete review.
• Initiative and Referendum to allow taxpayers to take charge of state government from an out-of-control legislature.
• End binding arbitration for public employees, including police officers.
• Stopping subsidies to New Jersey Network and selling the licenses and facilities to the highest bidder.
• Eliminate all unfunded state mandates on county and local governments.
• Announce he will veto the Paid Family Leave legislation that creates a new $130 Million payroll tax and a new open-ended entitlement program.
• Roll back new garbage taxes, the $10 television tax, the $500 S-Corporation tax and other new taxes passed under the McGreevey-Codey-Corzine administrations
• Oppose any new taxes or toll increases.

"New Jersey has the highest state sales tax in the country, the highest property taxes, the worst income taxes and the worst small business climate in the nation," Lonegan said. "Corzine's budget is the same phony 'freeze' Dick Codey put in before the last election and you can bet that if Corzine somehow gets re-elected in 2009 that the days of big spending, higher taxes, out-of-control debt and more regulations will be back and worse than ever."

Phone calls are more effective than email in letting politicians know how serious you are. Call your legislators and tell them "This is not enough!" Click here for phone numbers.

---

A Portrait In Courage: "We'll Just Keep The Money, OK?"

Via The Daily Journal:

Three area legislators on Monday introduced an eight-point plan they said would reduce state spending and help balance New Jersey's budget.

Among their proposals is one likely to have some homeowners hitting the roof: suspending the state's property tax rebate program for everyone except senior citizens and the disabled.

A rebate is when they collect tax money from you and then give some of it back, right? That's how I always understood the term.

But the New Jersey state government -- specifically State Senator Jeff Van Drew and Assemblymen Nelson Albano and Matthew Milam -- wants to cut spending by cutting rebates.

Follow that? Warped as it seems, they apparently think that "Don't spend so much of our money" means "don't give so much of our money back to us."

They should go back to Legislative Kindergarten, and their teacher should be Assemblyman Polistina. We don't want them to give less of our money back, we want them to spend less of our money.

That gives a deeply ironic feel to this quote:

"This plan requires courage and discipline," Van Drew said, adding that he expected fallout from the proposal to eliminate the annual property tax rebate for residents.

"We know this is almost the Holy Grail of politics, sending people a check in the mail," he said. "But we believe this is the right thing."

I respect the fact that these people are trying to find ways to avoid having Governor Corzine double tolls, and then double them again, and then double them again. (A shoe shine in Penn Station, given the same price inflation, would cost $32.)

I don't respect their calls for "courage and discipline". It takes courage to say "no" to additional requests for money. It takes discipline to stick to a budget. It takes no courage and no discipline to keep the excess money that you've been sucking out of our property taxes during the year.

And I don't respect their spin on the issue:

Van Drew, Albano and Milam said numerous constituents have told them they'd rather forego the rebate check than see tolls raised or get hit with other taxes.

I, too, would rather forego the rebate check than see tolls raised or other taxes levied.

But I would much, much rather see them reduce spending. These gentlemen have set up a classic rhetorical device, the false dichotomy, in an effort to hoodwink us into thinking that this is the only way.

Maybe they actually believe that it is. Maybe they actually believe that they're being courageous. If so, their thinking is hopelessly muddled.

Senator Van Drew, if you're listening: you have it wrong. Only a politician who is warped by the sense of entitlement around him could think that the Holy Grail of politics is sending people a check. I don't want a check. Nobody I've spoken to wants a check. We all want you to take less money in the first place.

Doing that -- and cutting services to make us fiscally whole again -- would take courage and discipline. That's your job. Please execute.

---

Taxes by State

With a hat tip to the National Taxpayers Union blog, here's a list of taxes in New Jersey, with links to all the other states as well.

---

A Little Perspective Makes A Big Difference

Your House As Seen By:

Yourself...


Your Buyer...


Your Lender...


Your Appraiser...


Your New Jersey Tax Assessor...

---

School Funding Plan - Something for everyone not to like

According to the Inquirer today, it seems that the more our local school districts learn about the governor's school funding plan, the more they don't like. We had always questioned how it was going to be paid for. But, now apparently the districts are going to be forced to reduce property taxes.

General Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts (D., Camden) praised the tax relief promised by the new formula.

"The state has a moral and a constitutional obligation to provide a quality education," Roberts said. "But we also have an obligation to confront the reality that we have the highest property taxes in the nation."

No issue with Speaker Roberts here. The heart of the problem may be stated more clearly by the Republican leader:

Assembly Republican Leader Alex DeCroce, whose district includes communities in Passaic and Morris Counties, said Democrats were trying to "ramrod a thoroughly complicated and convoluted school-funding formula" into law.

"They're moving faster than the Polar Express on an icy slope," DeCroce said in a statement.

I don't understand why this Governor insists on constant secrecy and then expects the Senate and Assembly to just rubber stamp his whims. If I were in either chamber, I would not stake my political reputation on Corzine as he still could become as notorious as James Florio for all the same reasons.

Slow down guys, Deliberate and get it right. The children of New Jersey deserve that much. Read the entire article 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."

---

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.

---