[T]he governor — by once again protecting tax breaks for 16,000 millionaires and using line-item vetoes on the Democratic budget — dramatically reduced potential school aid to suburban and rural school districts throughout New Jersey….

Taxpayers and schools throughout the state, no matter their locale, deserve fair and adequate funding. That’s why the responsible budget plan we Democrats submitted was based on the simple concept of treating everyone fairly, whether living in a city or a suburb….

That’s why I sponsored legislation to increase the income tax rate on 16,000 millionaires and also, by the way, to provide a much-needed tax break to senior citizen retirement income.

This was a reasonable request. Under the bill, each additional $100,000 earned above $1 million would cost that taxpayer an additional $1,780. And this isn’t to vilify millionaires. Such success is what America can be all about, and we celebrate it. In fact, millionaires are more than willing to be a part of the solution, yet the governor again vetoed the concept.

The result: The governor cut $492 million for suburban and rural school districts.

Fewer than half of Americans pay net taxes as it is. How much more money do you want to force out of people at the top of the food chain before it’s considered “fair and adequate funding”? Is it fair to take 50% of their money? 75%? 90%?

No problem, McKeon says, because “millionaires are more than willing to be part of the solution.”

So, does the Governor’s veto prevent them from giving money to the schools? Because if it doesn’t, McKeon can spend his considerable oratorical powers (which I saw on display when he was pulling down two taxpayer-funded paychecks, as mayor of West Orange and Assemblyman) to raise funds from the willing millionaires. I’m sure some of the 16,000 would be willing to give some money to the cause.

That’s not sufficient for McKeon or his party cohort, though. They want to make sure that everyone coughs up money, whether they agree with him or not. He will not vilify millionaires, but he’s sure willing to force them to pay for the causes he likes.

$492,000,000 / 16,000 = a $30,750 average tax increase per millionaire. This would be on top of whatever additional taxes President Obama tries to force through. This is money that could be driven to the private sector through investments, purchases, and other job-creating activities. How about letting them spend it instead?

McKeon thinks Governor Christie is wrong to let the millionaires keep their money. I say that if his ideas are so great, he should be able to convince the millionaires to give it up voluntarily.

Ocean Spray said it’s closing its 60-acre juice-manufacturing plant in September 2013 because operating a newly built facility in the Keystone State is cheaper than upgrading the Bordentown facility.

The juice plant has been a staple of the community and a major source of revenue for Bordentown since it was established in 1943. The imminent closure means the factory’s 250 employees will have to decide whether to move with the company or find new jobs.

That is a story that has been repeated so often I would qualify it as sad.  And the reaction of our local politicians is noteworthy.

City, county and state officials offered a number of incentives to keep Ocean Spray in the Garden State, but New Jersey Assemblyman Joe Malone, who lives in Bordentown, said the Massachusetts-based company didn’t negotiate in good faith.

The challenge of politics in this state is that our politicians are used to an entitlement culture that talks about jobs as “rights” and that companies should act as the government does, with no thought toward their responsibility to the shareholders.   And it doesn’t work that way in the real world.  Ocean Spray is a business.  It should evaluate the a major facility expansion just as it evaluates any business investment.  And even though it is painful, the fact that New Jersey was once very attractive to business and in the past several years has become the singularly most unattractive state in the country for business expansion must factor into their decision.

I don’t want to see Ocean Spray leave.  My wife’s grandfather worked there many years ago.  And I remember a New Jersey that was the leader in telecom, pharmaceuticals and others business that are rapidly moving away.  Perhaps soon the politicians of this state will realize that the government should act to encourage business growth and expansion instead of acting as a Lyme infected tick that will sooner or later sap every ounce of energy from the host. 

Read the entire article here.

I am a commuter to New York and frankly that project didn’t real;y make sense to me as it was going to drop passengers

at Macy’s, two blocks from Penn Station.    I also never understood why the state would accept this project when all cost

overruns were to be born by the state which in the end was all risk for NJ for what should have been a federal project given

that this is the northeast corridor and the tracks are owned by Amtrak.  Either way, it was cancelled by Christie.

Along comes the NJ Senate (From the Wall Street Journal):

The state Senate voted Thursday to roll back a portion of a planned highway toll increase meant to help pay for a new rail tunnel into New York that Gov. Chris Christie canceled over cost concerns.

“This bill is extremely simple — no tunnel, no toll increase,” said Sen. Nick Sacco of North Bergen, a bill sponsor.

What is the issue?  Christie said he would use the toll tax increase to cover the cost of road construction which has EXPLODED all

over the state due to the stimulus.  Democrats wants to be seen as “cutting the tolls”.  Fine with me.  The tunnel was ill conceived and

shouldn’t be New Jersey’s problem.  Much as the New Jersey Turnpike frankly amounts to a passthrough roadway and the second lane

project is a waste of money.  So Christie should cancel our part of that project as well and fix our local roads with our transportation

budget. 

And the Democrats can take credit for the turnpike cancellation as well.    I do find it really interesting that the only time a Democrat

can cut anything is when they think they can poke a stick in the eye of a Republican.  It probably feels good to them but it comes across

as a sorry joke to the rest of us.

It’s been painfully clear throughout Gov. Chris Christie’s first year in office that we are living in two very distinct and separate New Jerseys.

In Christie’s New Jersey, he thinks he can say, “Buck up and deal with my painful budget cuts,” and working- and middle-class families will simply fall in line without missing a beat. In the other New Jersey — the reality the rest of us live in — families are paying more for less and systematically being forced out of their way of life.

Yet, in his annual State of the State address last week, the governor touted what he perceives to be a record of progress and vowed more of the same.

And one of my favorites:

Meanwhile, property taxes are going up all over the state as the effects of the governor’s record cuts in state aid play out. The result has been reduced services and widespread police, firefighter and teacher layoffs.

Eventually we must ask ourselves: When does fiscal prudence trump the public’s safety and well being?

My answer to the Assembly Speaker is that since we really haven’t see serious fiscal prudence out of the Assembly in 12 years, it would be hard to know if the governor’s policies are hurting people.  I think people in the state have been much harder harder hit by businesses moving out and with them jobs.  By soaring property taxes literally from the time Jim McGreevey took office until Corzine left.  All Democrats and Oliver didn’t seem to care then.  But what are Oliver’s real motivations?

One might look no further than her campaign contribution reports to figure that out.  Of the $93,200 she reported to have raised for her last general election campaign, $52,100 came from explicit union contributors.  80% of those appear to be government employment unions.   But that isn’t all.  Most of the rest of the contributions are from business pac’s requiring heavy state interaction as well as political and ideological organizations.  How much came from individual contributors?  $3,900.    That is all of 4.1845% of her total contributions.

So the next time assemble speaker Oliver wants to lecture you on Two New Jerseys and fiscal prudence?  Ask her which group she is shilling for today because it isn’t the citizens of New Jersey (at least not 96% of the time).

“Do you allow yourself to be held hostage and get something done for the sake of getting something done, when in fact it might be perverse in its ultimate results? It’s almost like the question of do you negotiate with terrorists,” Menendez said when asked whether he and other Democrats would accept a compromise with Republicans.

What is interesting here is that while Menendez can never bring himself to actually condemn terrorists, he sees no problem calling his duly elected political opposition terrorists.  And I think Chuck Schumer said in all in this money quota:

Schumer, who handily won re-election this year, acknowledged the anger vented by tea partyers and others during the election but insisted that didn’t extend to upper-income tax cuts.

Voters “did say ‘repeal health care,’ they did say ‘reduce the size of government.’ But not a single one of them from the tea party or anywhere said ‘give tax breaks to the wealthiest,’” Schumer said in a rare moment of candor.

So where do we start?  Apparently we can expect Chuck Schumer to support the repeal of the Obamacare and the reduction of the Federal government in this lame duck.  He said that the voters made that statement correct?  And as to his comment on the “tax breaks for the wealthy”, if he would leave his Washington bubble for a short time and look around at his own constituents, the “wealthy” are the people who are struggling to keep their restaurants open, their bodegas stocked and their staff employed.  It appears that the only people who seem to be living it up these days happen to work for the government as Schumer and his colleagues has seen a collective growth in their income during this recession.  As the Center for Responsive Politics reported, between 2008 and 2009 congress saw an increase in their personal wealth by more than 16%.    I can also assure him and Menendez that couple with children in his constituency that make 200k per year are hardly “the rich”.  They are the people paying the highest tax rates in the country for the least services by government. 

And one more thing Mr Menendez, the American people and the people ofo NJ did not say they wanted you to create an amnesty program (the DREAM Act) so that you could legalize illegal aliens who have flaunted our laws for years in a lame duck congress.  As a matter of fact, they said just the opposite.  So if Chuck and Bob want to follow the will of the voters, perhaps they should concentrate on what they actually said in their own words.

Read the article here.

A few sorts and moving the cursor over the national map quickly present these facts: The state with the highest price per pack (in 2007, the most recent data) was New Jersey, $6.34. The cheapest was South Carolina, $3.31. And New Jersey had the highest per-pack tax, $2.71, and South Carolina the lowest, 7 cents.

Smoking rates are somewhat correlated with price, but more closely correlated by high percentages of smoke-free environments, by local government regulation. Kentucky had the highest smoking rate, at 28.3 percent, while Utah was the lowest, at 11.7 percent.

Yet cigarettes are relatively inexpensive in Utah, at $3.98 a pack. Presumably, the low smoking rate in Utah is explained less by price and policy than by religion — all those non-smoking Mormons.

Lesson 1: If you are trying to regulate a behavior, regulate it directly instead of trying to play social engineer with taxes.

Lesson 2: States’ rights are important, and not just as a matter of liberty. Imagine there were a federal law prohibiting smoking in public accommodations: There would be no data above showing us that differences in smoking rates had more to do with regulation than with taxes. By honoring states’ rights, we preserve liberty while also creating little experiments and incubators that can show us, empirically, the cause-and-effect relationships of different regulations, taxes, subcultures, and so on. Liberty: Good for the individual, good for the country. Go figure.

Dear New Jersey Democrats, you aren’t Hugo Chavez and N.J. isn’t Venezuela

Regarding your demands in the state legislature that the state government make like a Hugo Chavez and go after the wealthy for more income tax revenue:

Regarding your vow to veto the Democrats’ legislation to grab more money from the wealthy: Stick to your guns, big guy!

The “average taxpaying household” pays property taxes of about $12K per year.

If that household has an average child in the school system, that child costs the town about $15K per year just for education. (The BOE at the Council meeting said that was about right, maybe a little less, but little differences don’t matter for the argument. Also note that I’m only including the direct cost to West Orange through property taxes, not the money that we pay to the state so they can fund teachers’ Social Security and pensions.)

Thus a family with one general education student (cost: $15K) pays for part of that child’s education with its property taxes (tax: $12K). The town – other taxpayers, that is – subsidizes $3000 of that child’s education, plus all other services for that family while that child is in school. The town loses money on that family.

If a family has two children, two grades apart, that family consumes $192,000 more – in education costs alone – over the course of 14 years. (The math is at the end of the post.) It goes up with each additional child.

This implies to me that we should forbid any inbound immigration of Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Hispanics, or other populations with historically large families. Moreover, for large families that already live here, we will cut our losses if we offer a program that pays them $50K per family to leave. I love West Orange’s diversity, but not at that price!

Yes, I’m kidding. The point isn’t that we should hate people who have families, or that we should go to a one-child-per-family policy. The point is that we, as a vibrant community, want far more for our families than those households can contribute during those burgeoning-family years.

That implies, to me, a variety of important things:

• We should not make the property tax burden big enough that older families leave. If a family has two children, and the town loses $192,000 to them over 14 years, the parents need to stay in West Orange for an additional 16 years to make up the difference. (That is a statement about our finances, not about their obligations.) We want them to love the community and find it affordable to live in. If they decide to move into a smaller house, we want them to stay in town. Heck, we want them to tell their middle-aged and retired friends that they should move here, too. (Future slogan: “West Orange: Great for Grannies!”)
• We want the children of those older families to raise their families here, too. We want unmarried people and young couples to buy houses here before they have children, so that they start paying their part into the community up front.
• We should not make the burden so big that the rich leave. While we shouldn’t let the rich walk on us, we should not demonize them, either. Hate John Schmidt if you must, but his $30,000 annual tax burden covers the cost of two children every year. The average taxpayer’s burden covers less than one.
• We should want thriving businesses in West Orange. That doesn’t mean industry – I don’t really want that – but it does mean everything from supporting Bill down at the Ital-Mart Deli to shopping at Essex Green and the local Kmart. And it certainly means creating a tax environment that makes it possible for them to do well for themselves while doing good things for us.

In short, we literally can’t afford to make West Orange hostile to any of these people.

To understand our responsibility to them, and to our town, it’s critical that those of us with children in the schools should recognize that these people are subsidizing us.

That crystallizes things for me, and I’d like to address those of you who, like me, have one or more children in the public school system.

There has been talk recently about “pay-to-play” – in order to play the cello or soccer or what-have-you, the parents would need to kick in the money to fund the program. Several people said, “What about the poor people down the block who can’t afford it? Aren’t we supposed to provide everyone an equal opportunity?” But we’re not even paying for our own kids to play the cello. If you pay average property taxes and have three children in public school, then even if we doubled your taxes you wouldn’t even come close to paying for the full amount that the town spends on your kids. A request to pay for the poor people down the block is a request for more of our neighbors’ money.

And not the neighbors that you’re closest to, either. If you’re like my family, you probably hang out with other families with kids. Most of those kids are probably going to public school. Those families are contributing to our town’s deficit, just like we are.

We’re asking for more money from the retired couple down the street living on a fixed income, from the widow two streets over, from the struggling business on main street, from the family who’s trying to pay for college for their youngest daughter. And, yes, the banker in Llewellyn Park, too. We’re asking for money from people with whom we may not even have a relationship.

No, not asking: that sounds like we’re going door-to-door with a smile and an envelope. When we raise taxes, we are demanding more money, with threats of foreclosure for those who refuse.

We shouldn’t be surprised if that angers our neighbors, or makes them want to leave. It’s our attitude that needs adjusting, not theirs.

When we ask, not just that they continue to pay, but that they continue to pay more and more every year, during the worst economy in decades, we sound like self-centered fools. Just as I’ve said the teachers’ union should agree to a pay freeze, we middle-of-the-road families need to take one, too – a cut, even. I frequently dislike Hugh’s attitude and comments on the Watercooler, but when he says he’s struggling to make ends meet, it’s damned arrogant and insensitive to not recognize the validity of his perspective. When he says kids should pay extra to play the tuba, that’s because if the parents don’t, then he does.

This isn’t just a present concern. If we love West Orange, we should want to keep costs low now and into the future, because that’s the only way that West Orange will continue to be able to subsidize families like ours. If we are not modest in our aims now, we will drive out the very people who would continue to make this community what it is. We even make it unlikely that we ourselves will be able to stay as we age.

And that brings me to my last point: These aren’t just economic facts. These are things that we should want just from our sense of community. I want to love West Orange enough to stay when my kids are grown, and to be able to afford it when the time comes. I’m nowhere near in danger of living in Llewellyn Park or paying the so-called Millionaire’s Tax, but I want to get rich and to live in West Orange. I want my kids to consider settling in West Orange when their time comes. I want to be a living part of a thriving community.

Increased taxation will not help that cause.

Adding a “millionaire’s tax” will not help that cause.

Additional bonds will not help that cause.

Complaining about the overturned school budget will not help that cause.

Jealousy toward the rich will not help that cause.

If we want a thriving West Orange, we need to be affordable. Not just to families with school-aged children, either; it’s at least as important to be affordable and friendly to the rich, to young college graduates, to empty-nesters, and to retirees.

We are in the thick of the worst fiscal crisis most of us can expect to see in our lifetimes. Let’s stop being jealous. Let’s stop expecting everything we could possibly want. Let’s work together to find ways to live through the crisis, become affordable again, and be accountable to our neighbors for our costs, our behavior, and our attitudes.

I hope for a strong future for our town. I hope you do as well.

Regards,
Jake Freivald
Ridgeview Ave
West Orange, NJ

P.S. Math: For two years, only the oldest child is in school, so the education cost ($15K), and the tax amount ($12K) needs to be supplemented by the town ($3K).

Then the younger child enters the system, and for the following 10 years, there are two children in school, at a cost of $30K annually. Taxes collected per year are still $12K. The difference, $18K, has to be picked up by the town for those 10 years.

Then the older child graduates, and for two more years we need a supplement by the town again for $3K per year.

(2 years * $3K / year) + (10 years * $18K / year) + (2 years * $3K / year) = $192,000.

The state has the highest property tax rates in the nation. Last year, voters approved 73% of school budgets, which included new levies.

Voters rejected 314 of 537 budgets. Here are the official results from the New Jersey School Boards Association.

Christie, a freshman Republican, called yesterday’s vote “a seismic change that reflects, I believe, a changed attitude in New Jersey.”

“They’ve had enough. They want real, fundamental change,” Christie said at a press conference this afternoon.

Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions however it seems that given voters past history, this election represents a serious statement from citizens much as the election of Chris Christie made a statement last year. However, not everyone seems to get it:

“Clearly, the voters sent a message yesterday to the governor and the Legislature,” said Barbara Keshishian, president of the New Jersey Education Association. “They need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new budget plan, because this one is killing public education and driving property taxes even higher, neither of which is on the public’s wish list.

“The governor should start by reinstituting the ‘millionaire’s tax,’ which would restore $800 million in revenues.”

What an interesting assessment by the NJEA. The governor asks teachers to accept a pay freeze and not only did the NJEA oppose it, they went on the attack. It was interesting to note that 80% districts that accepted pay freezes passed their budgets (USA today). That tells me that the ‘millionaire tax’ notwithstanding, voters knew what they were doing. And the NJEA clearly wants recast this debate to be about gouging another class of voter to continue to pay for out of control education spending.

The problem the NJEA has is that the many of us in New Jersey in the private sector have accepted wage freezes for several years now. It isn’t just the past two years issues. Ever since 9/11, companies have been scaling back wages and benefits. And the downturn has made the average person more appreciative of maintaining their employment. In this climate, “demands” for pay increases for the highest paid teachers in the country are not resonating with the average person.

On Tuesday evening I went to my local polling place in Burlington county after my son’s baseball game. When we walked up to the door of the polling place, I couldn’t help but notice that 4 people were standing just off the walkway with a giant bag emblazoned with NJEA on the side. The bag measured roughly 36 inches wide and about 24 inches tall. I mentioned to the polling judges that standing outside a polling place and politicking is normally considered illegal in our state they went and investigated. The teachers claimed they didn’t have any signs. But it was clear what they were doing. They were looking for voters with children in the school to remind them that “it’s all about the kids”. The problem is that we know and they know it isn’t-it’s about them. And just like they don’t get simple rules like keeping polling places free of intimidation, they don’t get that we have had enough of their never ending money grab.