NJ New Liquor Tax Starts Today - Buy in Delaware instead!

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that another tax goes into effect today in New Jersey:

New Jersey's tax hike on wholesale wine and hard liquor goes into effect today, and those in the business say customers will most surely pay more than the fraction of a cent per drink that the extra 25 percent levy on spirits amounts to for distributors.

Gov. Corzine proposed the 25 percent increase and the Legislature approved it on wine and liquor - but not beer - as one of many measures to help balance the budget in a recession year. The extra tax is expected to raise about $22 million a year.

When you really think about it, purchasing liquor and wine are not exactly last minute impulse items and can be planned. Given that a significant portion of our state border other state, my suggestion is to go to PA, Delaware or NY to buy. I know that this suggestion is bad for business in New Jersey but until businesses in this state stop just accepting asinine policies from or dysfunctional state government.

Due to pricing policies in our surrounding state, Delaware is the place to go if you want to save money. And for those of you concerned about the legality of transporting liquor into our state, here are the rules from the Attorney General's office where they will make sure you go to jail for buying fireworks in NJ but not if you are a public official and accept bribes for your vote:


8 Are New Jersey consumers permitted to order alcohol from a catalog or via the internet and have it delivered to their homes?

New Jersey residents are not permitted to purchase beverage alcohol via telephone, mail order or the Internet from producers and retailers in other states. These sales, commonly known as “mail order sales,” are illegal because they bypass the State’s regulatory system for controlling liquor. Some of the problems caused by mail order sales involve the delivery of alcoholic beverages to underage persons, loss of tax revenue and the fact that entities, not licensed in New Jersey, are delivering and selling alcohol in this State. Most states in the country prohibit mail order sales for these and other reasons, and in some states, violations are treated as a criminal offense.

A person may personally purchase alcoholic beverages in another state and transport them into New Jersey only if (1) the alcoholic beverages are intended to be used solely for personal use and (2) the alcohol is personally transported in a vehicle into New Jersey. The amount of alcoholic beverages transported into New Jersey for personal use cannot exceed l/4 barrel or one case containing not in excess of 12 quarts of beer and one gallon of wine and two quarts of other alcoholic beverages within any consecutive period of 24 hours. If a person wishes to transport alcohol for personal use in excess of the above amounts, an application must be made to the Director, who if satisfied of the good faith of the applicant, and upon payment of a $50 fee, may issue a special permit permitting the transportation of alcohol into New Jersey in excess of the amounts listed above.

---

Stimulus ideas you disagree with are still ideas!

This morning I read an editorial in the Trentonian written by Donna Brazile decrying the fact that the GOP was "nitpicking" on the stimulus. Even more so, her contribution to the discussion was that Republicans had no ideas to add to the discussion. I am paraphrasing here because I do not want to dignify her statements by quoting them because they are so disingenuous.

During this stimulus debate, there were several alternative ideas put forward to create something that was stimulative and not just a Democratic party spendathon. Some of the Republicans ideas were as follows:

1. Real tax relief - The Obama plan offered 13 dollars per paycheck for those who qualify. This will have zero is no impact because everyone knows they are temporary. Republicans continuously fought to increase the return of taxpayer money back to those who earn the money. Apparently, this doesn't qualify as an "idea" because it is a core principle of conservatives.
2. Eliminate all non-stimulative spending from the package - We do not even know half the mess that this congress has showered upon its special interests. Every single spending item in this plan should have been evaluated in the context of real impact on the economy.
3. Small business tax relief - Small businesses add jobs. Government spending on welfare doesn't. Isn't it interesting that the small business breaks to stimulate job growth were stripped from the bill.
4. MORE spending on infrastructure. Republicans agree on the infrastructure ideas and wanted them more immediate and more stimulative. Of course, Republicans were not trying to stage this money for Obama's next election as Democrats were apparently trying to do.

Even the Republican Study Committee submitted their own bill of which the summary is shown below:

The Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act of 2009

“Responsible and immediate economic stimulus for every American family and business without burdening future generations.”

Financial markets are tumbling worldwide. The unemployment rate is climbing. It is clear that more Americans are struggling to make ends meet and that the economy needs a boost. The question is: from where should that boost come, Washington or the private sector? Conservatives believe the answer is the private sector. History shows that the best way to encourage an economic turnaround, help preserve jobs, and spur widespread economic growth is to ensure that job-creators face a lower
tax burden.

That’s why the Republican Study Committee (RSC) is introducing the Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act of 2009—to provide some much-needed, incentive-based relief to jobcreators and to reduce the cost that government imposes on middle-class families. The RSC’s Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act is designed to provide broad, growth-oriented, permanent incentives for economic activity across all sectors and industries, with immediate application and sustained, long-term implications. This will ensure that Washington takes a back seat to Main Street and job creators are empowered to do what they do best—create jobs.

Highlights: The RSC’s Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act is based on three main themes:

1) Support Families through Tax Relief; 2) Provide Economic Relief for American Businesses and Entreprenuers; and 3) Save Future Generations from a Crushing Debt Burden.

Support Families through Tax Relief
1) Five Percent Across the Board Income Tax Cut. This provision would reduce the six federal income tax rates by 5% beginning with 2008, and make the new rates permanent. Under current law, by contrast, income tax rates will increase in 2011.
2) Increase the Child Tax Credit from $1,000 to $5,000. Under current law, families are eligible for a $1,000 tax credit for each child under the age of 17. This provision would increase, and make permanent, an increase in the child tax credit to $5,000 beginning in 2008. This will provide a substantial, immediate tax cut for middle-class families. The increased credit would not be refundable.
3) Make the Lower 15% Rate on Capital Gains and Dividends Permanent. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 lowered the top tax rates on capital gains and dividends to 15%. Under current law the lower rates currently in effect expire at the end of 2010, which means that the top capital gains rate will go back to 20% and the top tax rate for dividends will be 39.6%. The last time the capital gains tax rate increased (1987), capital gains tax collections fell by 54% over
the first five year and then took a full decade to recover. This provision makes the 15% rate permanent.
4) Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax on Individuals. The AMT was created in 1969 to prevent 155 wealthy taxpayers from using loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying taxes altogether. Under current law, the tax will hit more than 30 million people in 2009. There is a broad consensus that this is both an unintended result and an unfair one, which is why Congress has repeatedly passed an “AMT patch” to limit the scope of the tax. The legislation would permanently repeal the AMT.
5) Permanently Repeal Required Distributions on Retirement Accounts. Under current law, senior citizens, beginning at the age of 70-and-a-half, are required to make mandatory withdrawals from their IRAs and 401(k)s. Though temporarily suspended for 2009, this provision in the tax code is scheduled to go back into effect in 2010 and for every year thereafter. This provision in the tax code needlessly complicates financial planning for retirees, restricts the freedom of seniors to make
their own decisions on when to make withdrawals, and in the short-term will force many seniors to sell a portion of their assets at a loss. The bill permanently repeals this provision.
6) Make All Withdrawals from IRAs Tax- and Penalty-Free During 2009. As a general matter, the purpose of 401(k)s and IRAs is to incentivize retirement savings. However, individuals who are facing foreclosure or some other financial emergency during the current recession should have penalty-free access to all of their savings. Especially since, without any other alternative, some
families facing hardship will have no choice but to take the penalty. The bill would, for 2009, make all withdrawals from IRAs penalty- and tax-free.
7) Increase by 50% the Tax Deduction on Student Loans and the Tax Deduction on Qualified Higher Education Expenses. Under current law, the tax code provides a tax deduction of $2,500 for interest on student loans and a tax deduction of $4,000 for higher education expenses. This provision would increase the value of both by 50% or to $3,750 and $6,000 respectively, and apply both provisions to a larger number of middle-class families by allowing any individual earning up to $75,000, or any family earning up to $150,000, to claim the full deduction.


Provide Economic Relief for American Businesses and Entrepreneurs
1) Full, Immediate Expensing. The bill would allow all businesses to immediately expense—or fully deduct on their tax returns—the costs of assets (including buildings) they purchase for their business in the year that they buy such assets (“Section 179” expensing). Under current law, businesses can only take limited deductions in pieces, over several years. By uncapping and accelerating the expensing, this provision would encourage the purchase of assets with which to
grow a business.
2) Significant Reduction in the Top Corporate Income Tax Rate. The bill would immediately cut the top corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25%, aligning it with the average rate in the European Union. By allowing businesses to keep more of the money they earn, this provision would encourage the expansion of businesses, the hiring of more workers, and an acceleration of investment, while making American companies more competitive internationally.
3) End the Capital Gains Tax on Inflation. The bill would index for inflation the cost basis used when calculating the capital gains tax on assets acquired before the end of 2009. Under current law, the capital gains tax is based on the difference in the original purchase price of the asset and the sale price of the asset. However, some of this difference, or “gain,” can be attributed to inflation. By effectively reducing the amount of a gain that is taxable, this provision would encourage the
movement of capital in 2009 and spur voluminous economic investment.
4) Simplify the Capital Gains Rate Structure. The bill would allow corporations to benefit from the 15% capital gains rate. Under current law, individuals pay a top capital gains rate of 15%, but corporations are subject to a 35% top rate. By encouraging corporations to sell unwanted assets, this provision would unleash funds and materials with which to create jobs and grow the economy.
5) Make the R and D Tax Credit Permanent. The Research and Development tax credit is currently due to expire at the end of 2009. Originally enacted as party of President Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, it has since been extended on 13 separate occasions without being made permanent. The purpose of this tax provision is to spur research and development in the private sector.
6) Extend the Carryback Period for Net Operating Losses to Seven Years. A business incurs a net operating loss when its tax liability is negative in a given year. Under current law, there is a twoyear carryback period for businesses to receive refunds on previously paid taxes. In other words, a business may receive a refund equal to their negative tax liability up to the amount of taxes paid
over the previous two years. This legislation would extend this period from two years to seven years, which will smooth out changes in business income, and incentivize private sector investment and job creation.

Save Future Generations from a Crushing Debt Burden
1) NO Trillion Dollar Spending Spree. Even before Congress enacts one penny of spending from a “stimulus” bill currently being put together by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid, this year’s deficit is projected to be, by far, the highest peacetime deficit in the history of the country—8.3% of GDP. And this is because federal spending is projected to be 24.9% of GDP (also the highest figure in American history, excepting World War II), even before any new spending is
enacted. This legislation does not contain one penny of new spending, and rejects the idea that massive new government spending will lead to an economic recovery. Borrowing from one part of the economy and redistributing it to others will not grow the economy.
2) A Down-Payment on Spending Restraint. The bill includes a one-percent reduction to FY 2009 discretionary spending, excepting the Defense and Military Construction-Veterans appropriations bills. This is a modest limit on the extent to which spending will otherwise increase compared to FY 2008, and is a first step toward a commitment of spending restraint.

Lack of ideas indeed. I had lived through this silly assessment in New Jersey which goes essentially unchallenged in the press. The sad thing is that too many people believe it and do nothing, read nothing and do not act.

---

Misguided Spending

An article from the Chronicle of Higher Education laments a rule that "lacks teeth":

Under the rule, states must spend at least the same amount of money for colleges each year as they spent on average in each of the previous five years.

Forget whether or not it lacks teeth. (The issue there is that the feds haven't established a federal monitoring process. Not my point.) Look at why they created the mandate:

Advocates of the spending mandate, enacted in part to encourage states to provide consistent levels of aid to colleges to help them rein in costs, worry...

So if I am to understand this correctly, forcing the states to pump more money into education is supposed to decrease costs. Which is funny, because on my planet, people cut costs when there's less money to spend.

Maybe the mandate's advocates should retake Econ 101.

---

Stimulus that doesn't stimulate - Part II

In our first post examining the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act we examine each category of spending and commented on whether or not it was worthwhile as well as its impact on stimulating the economy. Last week saw a Congressional Budget Office report (or draft) that drew some of the same conclusions that we did here. From the Washington Post article on the subject:

Less than half the money dedicated to highways, school construction and other infrastructure projects in a massive economic stimulus package unveiled by House Democrats is likely to be spent within the next two years, according to congressional budget analysts, meaning most of the spending would come too late to lift the nation out of recession.

A report by the Congressional Budget Office found that only about $136 billion of the $355 billion that House leaders want to allocate to infrastructure and other so-called discretionary programs would be spent by Oct. 1, 2010. The rest would come in future years, long after the CBO and other economists predict the recession will have ended.

This lays bare what is obvious to everyone but the most partisan Democrat-that the stimulus is a massive spending bill that is using the problems with the economy to justify the biggest government shopping spree in 60 years. And the reason is equally obvious. These politicians know that there will be will not be the normal money spigot they are used to under normal spending evaluation and deliberation in the legislature.

A side story on the CBO report is that the alleged report is no longer available. you can assign any motive you want for it but you can read it here and decide for yourself. Look for a new report soon that will sand over the factual rough edges on this one and make it appear the the spending is more immediate.

---

NJ spending is fixed by courts? So fix the courts.

In this article in the CourierPostOnline, Sharon Schulman discusses the budget options available to New Jersey legislators. Her point is that there are not too many options available to cut:

There is no magic bullet that allows a governor or legislature to give us property-tax relief without creating pain elsewhere. They are constrained by the nearly 75 percent of the state budget that is fixed and cannot be touched. So in a $30 billion budget, $21.5 billion is fixed and cannot be cut. The idea of cutting the state budget 10 percent really only means cutting 10 percent of $8.5 billion -- not from $30 billion. A brief look at the 75 percent of the state budget that is fixed shows us that 60 percent is mandated programs and results of court decisions. They include:

Medicaid

State labor contracts, including contractual commitments to provide health care and other benefits

Court-supervised child welfare reform

Court-ordered spending in Abbott districts

Debt service payments

Great points all. So here we go with suggestions.

1. Our supreme court in New Jersey is frankly a political patronage mill. These people are not exceptional jurists. They are partisan appointees. So what to do?

-Fight the Abbott ruling and have the legislature refuse to follow the courts. New York did and and was successful in getting the payments down and under control.

2. Medicaid rules do not specify all of what should be covered and by what amount. Re-evaluate the New Jersey exposure and cut it to the median of the 50 states expenditure per person.

3. Revisit state labor contracts. Situations change and with a state that is closing in on bankruptcy, everything should be on the table. If the unions won't meet halfway, maybe the citizens will see that only those of us in the private sector are expected to take a hit in bad times. And the result of that will be a taxpayer revolt.

4. Stop borrowing. While the current administration bemoans debt service, they decided to borrow another 3.9 BILLION dollars. Stop it.

These changes would immediatelry have an impact on the budget and the care and feeding of corrupt patronage feeder systems in New Jersey. If EVERYTHING is on the table, then changes can happen.

---

Really, Governor?

From WBGO News:

Corzine says he is working on a plan for transportation but it will be weeks before he releases it. But the state will still need billions of dollars for it – to pay down debt, widen the Turnpike, and possibly build a new tunnel across the Hudson River. Treasurer David Rousseau has said every governor has needed money for transportation projects but was not willing to risk popularity for the sake of higher tolls.

How about being willing to risk popularity for the sake of reduced spending?

But he couldn't do that. Rousseau is talking about popularity among taxpayers. Corzine doesn't really care about them -- only about being popular among liberals who suck at the teat of big government.

So instead of trying to pull us out of a financial crisis, he's blighting the landscape for employers and taxpayers. Good going, Guv. Way to take the high road.

---

Corzine paying down the debt? Not yet.

In Newsday.com, this article entitled

NJ takes next step in reducing debt

would make one believe that the state has done something significant. If you believed that, you would be wrong.

Less than two months after creating a special fund to pay down state debt, the Corzine administration has taken a significant next step: identifying the bonds that will be paid off early.

Yes. It took state workers two entire months to identify what bonds to retire early. Given that the source of this news if the clearly biased AP, one wonders if this is not just a Democrat fund raising stunt. Look for Corzine to make a commercial out of it soon. But, the joke is, he hasn't done anything. And he decided to keep your hard earned money to pretend to do it.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine created the fund in June, setting aside $684 million in unexpected tax revenue and other savings. Most of the money _ $650 million _ is being used to reduce the state's crushing $32 billion debt load. The rest will go toward other pressing needs, such as improving state prisons and psychiatric hospitals, the administration said.

As I have noted here before, this is OUR tax money. And instead of paying it back, he and his cronies in the legislature kept it to fund additional spending and try to cover up the increase in debt incurred by this and our former DEMOCRAT governor.

The sad thing is that when Corzine runs his commercials in his re-election campaign, he will not mention what he really did.

Republicans commended the concept, but said Democrats' approval to borrow $3.9 billion for court-ordered school construction would erase any gains.

Sen. Leonard Lance, R-Hunterdon, estimated that the new school borrowing would cost $6.82 billion once interest and other costs were included. He has long advocated a plan to subject all state borrowing to voter approval.

Write the check Governor. We are watching.

---

Even When It's Private, It's Public

When a Republican says that private investors should invest in a particular technology, they mean that (a) the legislature has been investing with our tax dollars, which should stop, or (b) outside investors should be encouraged to invest through tax breaks and other incentives.

When a Democrat says that private investors should invest in a particular technology, they mean that they want to create a new layer of bureacracy.

Great idea. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

---

Corzine, Stop Buying Scotch!

At the bottom of this Associated Press story is a telling statement about Corzine's approach to borrowing and spending.

Corzine has backed requiring voter approval for new borrowing, but said the school construction money is different because it's court-ordered. The state Supreme Court in 1998 ordered the state to pay for new schools in the poorest school districts.

So if you're told that you must pay for something, you have to be able to borrow money to do it -- regardless of what the voters say.

Consider a normal New Jersey household. (You know, the kind containing a family of people who are thinking of fleeing New Jersey to avoid the outrageous taxes.)

Now consider the husband telling the wife, "Yes, I know we agreed on a budget, and I know that we are in debt up to our ears, but we have to pay taxes, so we have to be able to borrow money for them. I'm going to put them on a credit card. Now I'm going to pop over to the liquor store for a liter of single-malt scotch. Don't worry, we can afford it -- I have cash."

The wife would rightfully beat him about his head and neck. After all, she knows that when you're in debt, you have to control overall spending. When you don't have significant control over a certain expense, that's called "non-discretionary spending". When you can control how much you spend on something, it's called "discretionary spending". The budget must account for non-discretionary spending, sometimes cutting discretionary spending to avoid borrowing to pay for the non-discretionary stuff.

In other words, the wife would shout at her husband, "You idiot! Stop buying scotch when we need money to pay the taxes!"

Corzine needs the equivalent of a sensible wife. Not only doesn't he understand the fact that speculation affects petroleum prices, he doesn't even understand the basics of budgeting.

And this is the guy we elected because of his business experience. Maybe we need politicians with less experience on Wall Street and more experience managing a household budget on Main Street.

---

More on the Center for Fathers

Special thanks to WBGO's News Director, Doug Doyle, for forwarding the press release about the Center for Fathers to me. I can also now find a tiny amount of coverage for the program (a few of these are essentially the same article): here, here, here, and here.

Here's the press release:

Mayor Booker Tours Newark comprehensive Center for Fathers; Program Provides Support and Resources for City's Dads
Program aims to help Newark fathers raise their children and lead productive lives

Newark, NJ - June 9, 2008 - Mayor Cory A. Booker toured a bold new program to assist Newark fathers at the Newark comprehensive Center for Fathers (NCCF) at Essex County College today. The center is designed to provide an array of services to fathers in transition - men who have lost their jobs or homes, or who are re-entering the workforce following incarceration and who seek to assume greater responsibility for and contribute to the lives of their children.

The facility is administered by the non-profit Newark Now in partnership with the City of Newark; Newark Works; the New Jersey Department of Labor; New Jersey Legal Services; and the ReLese Network. The program is in its third week and already has 20 fathers in the class.

"With the opening of this center, we are now providing the tools that or fathers need to succeed - as men, as parents and as residents of Newark," Mayor Booker said. "I am reaching out to and challenging all the fathers in Newark who are at risk or need help to come out and talk to our staff so that they can help in addressing all needs and concerns. Through the efforts put into this program, residents throughout the City of Newark will be able to sustain successful and productive lives for themselves and their families."

Using a holistic approach, Newark's Comprehensive Center for Fathers offers mentoring, parenting, life skills classes, legal assistance, math and reading skills, individual counseling, support groups, father/child activities. In addition, the program offers employment search and interview preparations services.

At the tour, Mayor Booker was joined by Newark Now Executive Director Modia Butler and Lavar Young, the Executive Director of Newark's Comprehensive Center for Fathers. The NCCF program is based on Philadelphia's nationally-recognized National comprehensive Center for Fathers.

The center's hours are 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday. To contact the center and learn more about its programs, call (973) 733-3460 ext. 432.

Contact:
Press Information Office: (973) 733-8004
Press Secretary Esmeralda Diaz Cameron: (201) 396-2556
E-mail: Pressoffice@ci.newark.nj.us

---

Happy Fathers' Day from Cory Booker

UPDATE: I apologize for the incoherence of what follows. Special thanks to Doug Doyle, WBGO's news director, for sending me the press release that sparked their news item (now published here), and to Cephas Bowles, WBGO's General Manager, for taking the time to discuss funding for public radio in the comments section below.

I've slightly modified the post to fix a few things that the press release helped me sort out.

---

I don't know much about Cory Booker, Mayor of Newark, but I want to know more after hearing a news report this morning on Jazz 88, WBGO (if you're not a member, you really should be*).

I'm upset that there isn't coverage about this anywhere. I can't get quotations, and what you're getting is a brain dump of what I heard when I was driving twelve hours ago instead of responsible reporting.

Doug Doyle, the WBGO News Director, talked about a new Center for Fathers in Newark. It's specifically for fathers who are out of work or newly released from jail. Mayor Booker said something to the effect that fathers are a critical part of the life of Newark; that how they fare affects Newark's stability.

Mayor Booker made a comment that I can't clearly recall now, but I remember thinking that he wasn't talking about the equality of the sexes, or of the poor and underprivileged, or of providing handouts to the needy; he was talking about a center where men could learn to be independent men and good fathers in tough times. [From the press release: "With the opening of this center, we are now providing the tools that or fathers need to succeed - as men, as parents and as residents of Newark."]

I hope that I heard correctly. I'd like to know more, but I can't find a thing about this new center out there.

I'm not big on spending money unnecessarily, but seeing a local politician highlight something that would make such a big difference to his environment is really compelling. I wish him well.

-----

* Yes, I know that I shouldn't like Public Radio. I still don't understand what it means to be a "A private corporation funded by the American people", as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) claims to be, nor how the differences between the CPB, PBS, and NPR really matter, if the CPB funds PBS and NPR -- it still sounds like our tax money, just filtered through more layers of bureaucracy. But if they're going to fund it anyway, I'm not going to ignore it out of spite; and if I really think that people should pay for what they want, then WBGO is well worth paying for.

---

How Screwed Up Do We Need To Be?

Read this article from the Star-Ledger. Take particular note of a few passages:

New Jersey is struggling with more than $32 billion in state debt, the third-highest in the country. All but $3 billion was issued without voter backing.

And then this:

The state constitution already says voters must approve borrowing, but lawmakers routinely have dodged the requirement by authorizing quasi-state agencies to issue billions in debt, and promising to repay it through the state budget.

Got that? According to the state constitution, 90% of our bloated debt slips through a loophole to survive, like Teddy Kennedy escaping his seatbelt at Chappaquiddick.

But apparently we're idiots, because we'll listen to people who tell us things like this:

Critics of the amendment [to require the approval of voters to issue new debt] say it would sap power from legislators elected to make intricate decisions, and turn complex borrowing schemes into yes-or-no issues vulnerable to voters' snap judgments.

"Simple bumper-sticker politics do not lend themselves to (that) kind of decision-making," said Steve Wollmer, spokesman for the powerful New Jersey Education Association teachers union. "It would really limit or potentially cripple the state's ability to make timely investments for the public good."

Of course, by "voters' snap judgments" Mr. Wollmer means "the democratic process". But maybe he has a point: maybe democracy is overrated. It's the same voters' snap judgments that got Jim McGreevey and Richard Codey into office, after all.

Mr. Wollmer thinks that the democratic process should be circumvented for "the public good". I don't know how good his math is -- he's a spokesman for the NJEA, after all, and they don't really focus much on quality education -- but New Jersey has 8,724,560 people and thirty-two billion dollars ($32,000,000,000) in debt. That means that the state owes $3668 for each man, woman, and child in New Jersey. That debt load is not in "the public good". The attitude of Mr. Wollmer and fellows like him is not in the public good.

A government living within its means? That's practically the definition of "the public good".

Richard Codey disagrees because we might be "tying a future governor's and Legislature's hands" should a need for emergency borrowing arise. But like former president Clinton meeting the Razorback cheerleaders, their hands should be tied, and for the same reason -- to stop them from grabbing everything they can get their hands on.

The problem is not that I want to prevent noble men and women to be unable to lead our state through difficult times, but that most of our state legislators are neither noble nor leaders. Codey says, "There are times when you'd need to do it and do it right away and not necessarily wait for an election," and I agree -- but now's not the time.

Not when Richard Codey thinks that there shouldn't be a democracy-based check on public spending.

Not when our so-called leaders have shown themselves incapable of knowing when they should borrow and when they shouldn't.

Not when they circumvent our constitutional process and issue eleven times more debt than they are allowed to.

Not when the State Supreme Court has "ruled the state could continue to issue bonds through its authorities without asking voters first."

That last fact is particularly galling. The ruling came in 2003. "The justices in the minority," the article says, "said the decision essentially killed the clause in the constitution giving voters control," which provides us with One More Example of a liberal court undermining a constitution. In an understatement to tell your grandkids about, Seton Hall University political scientist Joseph Marbach says, "The fact that we need a constitutional amendment to tell the court what the constitution says is also a little bit troubling."

We're in a budget crisis that makes Governor Corzine want to octuple our tolls, shut down hospitals, and provide fiscal responsibility (in the form of increased taxes for outdoor projects). How bad does it need to get before we stop spending money on superfluous certificates for veterans? How screwed up do we have to be as a state before we stop providing handouts to artists? How screwed up do we need to be before they stop spending our money -- and our kids' money, and our grandkids' money?

How screwed up do we need to be before we stop allowing these guys to destroy our state?

---

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.

---

NY Times thinks NJ Legislators are timid!

In a silly opinion piece in the New York Times, the time took the position that Governor Corzine is brave, has done nothing to cause the state's current budget problems and his being saddled with a timid legislature:

Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey has thrown in the towel in his four-month effort to persuade the State Legislature to reduce his state’s colossal debt by sharply raising turnpike and parkway tolls. The Legislature, which does not share his sense of urgency, gave him no choice. Despite its merits, the plan had little support from Republicans or the Democrats, who control both legislative houses.

This puff opinion piece is startling in its complete lack of any real information to justify the position the paper is taking. The Times bright idea...raise taxes:

Though the fiscal mess is not of Mr. Corzine’s making, he must come back with an alternative. Our own suggestion is that he reconsider his opposition to raising the state’s gas tax. This may seem counterintuitive with gas prices climbing and politicians everywhere talking about lowering gas taxes, but New Jersey’s levies are among the country’s lowest.

The paper fails to mention that the gas tax is the only piece of taxation that the legislators have failed to raise over the past 10 years. With a constant drumbeat of political bosses serving special interests at the cost of New Jersey taxpayers, residents have driven to a position where they pay the highest overall taxes in the country.

I am actually surprised that this wasn't on the front page. It matches the normal amount of research and bias we have come to expect from the famous newspaper with the collapsing readership. What the paper ignores is that the reason legislators are lukewarm to Corzine's proposals is that he plainly said that he isn't prepared to play scrooge on spending. That tells everyone in government that he isn't serious and won't be left holding the bad when the citizens say enough is enough.

While the Times credits Corzine's 'gumption', they should be calling him on his political cowardice and outright incompetence.

---

Taxing Porker of the Month - Bill Baroni(R-14) and the Paid Family Leave Tax (watch out John McCain)

For his support of the Paid Family Leave Tax, Bill Baroni get's this month's Taxing Porker of the Month Award. As a Republican, Mr Baroni claims to support good government, claims to be against corruption and excessive spending by Trenton. The strange this is that Mr Baroni has unbelievably large support from the unions of this state such as the NJEA (the largest public employee union in NJ) as well as several trades unions. Given the undue influence unions have in bloating the state budget, one has to question their love of Mr Baroni.

People in New Jersey wonder why Republicans do not get traction in this state despite the large number of people who in many other state would be pre-disposed to be conservative or right of center politically. It is because the Republican party in New Jersey looks too much like the Democratic party in New Jersey. And Bill Baroni is a perfect example.

I think that John McCain may want to re-evaluate Mr Baroni's position in his campaign in the state of New Jersey. It is hard to claim you are against government waste and support lower taxes when your campaign chairman in the state is for both!

Of course, it Mr Baroni somehow realizes that his constituents (who in Hamilton have been severely hurt by their representatives over the post 8 years and pay some of the highest taxes in NJ) are more important than the lobbyists for his union friends, we will happily rescind his pork skin. But I am not holding my breath.

---

New feature - Taxing Porker of the Month! Greenstein and DeAngelo

It's high time for a new feature highlighting those politicians in the Garden State who seem to defy good sense in promoting a tax (and spend) first culture in our state. It is not surprising that the first winners of this award are from Hamilton township, near to where I live. This township elected a completely irresponsible leadership team that proceeded to take a successful and reasonably well off town and run it into the ground. These two are clearly leftovers from a policy of failed social policy mixed with a complete lack of fiscal responsibility.

The winners are Linda Greenstein and Wayne DeAngelo for their proposal to increase taxes for a paid family leave act that won't help families but will raise taxes. This is more about taxation than helping people and these two cannot even begin to understand how to assist working people in a jam. They could have pursued a range of options but in true liberal form, the only thing they could come up with was to tax every single working person in the state to facilitate their untimely pork.

And for their sadistic torture of the citizens of the state of New Jersey, DeAngelo and Greenstein are our porkers of the month!

---

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.

---

Quote of the Day

Via Reuters:

"There will clearly be things the government will not be doing in the future."

-- Acting Treasurer David Rousseau

---

Courage by another name would be called...Cowardice

In the Record's Northjersey.com NJ Politics section, an article written by John Reitmeyer entitled Corzine's toll plan draws more public outrage details some of the serious opposition to Governor Corzine's toll plan. While everyone is acknowledging that the Governor's plan is crashing and burning, it points to a rather irritating trend that keeps repeating itself. The vision is of a Democrat legislator proposing some new tax in an attempt to throw one more piece of excrement on the public wall to see if it will stick.

This kind of logic uses the old paradigm that if the lesser of two evils makes a good thing. The problem is that New Jersey citizens are reaching Florio-like frustration with the entire process and it's lack of concern for them. The Quinnipiac poll the other day for example saw a trully biased question that only could be posed in the Northeast:

If New Jersey voters must choose a way to raise state revenues, choices are:
31 percent say raise sales taxes;
23 percent say raise tolls;
13 percent say raise gas taxes;
13 percent say raise income taxes.

This is a canard question. If you asked the same respondent "Would you be willing to have a 150% increase in the sales tax to balance the budget shortfall, would you choose that?". Of course the answer would be something distinctly New Jersey and quite colorful. My favorite part of this article was written near the end:

"It's a mark of political courage that he is not resorting to the type of quick fixes of the past that bought time, but made the problems worse in the long run," said state Assemblyman Joseph Cryan, chairman of the state Democratic Party. "The fact that alternative ideas don't 'poll well' shows there are no easy answers."

So now, punting on the budget and soaking the taxpayer through an Enron financial scam is courage? And a massive increase to the gas tax is better? I love courage when defined by irresponsible people - if often looks a lot more like cowardice to me.

---

Governor - Employee staff cuts aren't serious

Governor Corzine has once again proposed what he thinks are draconian cuts and are in reality pedestrian and frankly lack courage. From the NY Times:

Faced with a worsening economy, Gov. Jon S. Corzine is considering reducing the state’s work force by 3,000 employees and closing at least one department in the administration as part of his plan to slash up to $2.5 billion from next year’s budget, people who have been briefed on his plans said on Tuesday.

The issue here is clearly described by the New Jersey Business Industry Association:

Even as private-sector employment growth has slowed over the last six years and nine months, government employment has soared.

Since December 2000, public-sector employment in New Jersey has expanded by a net 53,700 jobs, a 9 percent increase.

So if the Governor is serious, he should be concentrating on reducing state employees in a serious way. The pure fact that he mentions that there will be no layoffs suggests that he really doesn't want to make hard decisions. He should announce publically that the state needs to:

1. Cut state workers by 10 percent from current levels (based on 2007 data, 8000 employees)
2. Establish a series of programs to reduce all NJ non-safety government jobs by at least 10 percent over 3 years (40,000 jobs)
3. Explain to the state how the combination of local, county and state employments has exploded and establish a plan to cut it back.

The Governor cannot continue to pretend that only the state budget is his responsibility. One of the problems is New Jersey is the massive county and local workforce which has no parallel in other states. WHY? As a leader, it is the Governor's job to make this point and lead with solutions to turn it around.

---