NJ Transit fare hike and dumping the property tax rebate

There were two significant fiscal austerity changes proposed by the current administration that are sure to get NJ residents blood boiling (including mine). The first was the announcement of NJ Transit's fare hike proposal(from this link at NJTransit.com):

March 5, 2010
NJT-10-020

NEWARK, NJ — Citing a looming $300 million budget deficit for the coming fiscal year, NJ TRANSIT today released a proposal to increase fares by 25 percent systemwide and trim service proportionate to recent ridership declines.

Under the proposal, a one-zone local bus trip or one-way ticket on Newark or River Line light rail lines would increase from $1.35 to $1.70 per ride, remaining lower than base fares on transit systems in New York ($2.25) and Philadelphia ($2.00). One-way commuter rail tickets would increase about 25 percent, subject to rounding. Rail ticket prices vary based on distance, but one-way fares would rise from a range of $1.25-$13.25 to a range $1.50-$16.50. (For example, a trip from Metropark in Iselin, NJ to New York Penn Station today is $8 and under the plan would rise to $10.) Hudson-Bergen Light Rail tickets would increase from $1.90 to $2.40 per trip.

“We recognize that any increase is a burden for our customers, particularly during a recession,” said Executive Director Jim Weinstein. “However, we have worked to keep local bus fares below the regional average and preserved some important discounts for seniors and people with disabilities, as well as for students and others who are among the most transit dependent.”

As a daily rider on NJ Transit you cannot feel good about this. But one also has to consider that our transit prices are actually pretty low by global standards and when there isn't money, there isn't money. Like it or not however, this is an additional 'tax' on the working class of New Jersey at a very difficult time.

Then this from Philly.com:

In a switch, Christie may end property-tax rebates
By Jonathan Tamari

Inquirer Trenton Bureau

TRENTON - Gov. Christie is considering scaling back or eliminating property-tax rebates in his budget proposal, a move that could yield significant savings but would mean going back on a campaign pledge.

As Christie tries to close a projected $11 billion deficit next fiscal year, scenarios under discussion include slashing the popular but expensive rebates, according to two administration officials with knowledge of budget talks.

They stressed that no final decisions had been made. Christie is scheduled to unveil his budget March 16.

At a cost last year of $1.1 billion, rebates form one of the largest pools of money in the budget. Lawmakers in both parties have said privately for weeks they expect cuts to the program.

Rebates are one of the most tangible ways state government tries to offset New Jersey's high local property taxes, which average nearly $7,300. The program is so large and costly, though, that it is a prime target for governors seeking spending cuts.

We have never supported the NJ Property Tax Rebate program here at NJTaxRevolution and have commented on it many times. When productive citizens who pay most of the property taxes are not eligible for the rebates while apartment renters get checks, something is seriously wrong. The rebate program has always been a political gimmick and resembles welfare far more than an actual refund for taxes paid. The state should scrap it and actually work on the problem of skyrocketing property taxes.

And if politicians want to give out checks to apartment dwellers or others they deem politically important to them, let them pass the legislation in the sunlight. And let the citizen determine whether or not they were responsible uses of the taxpayers money. But don't hide behind a 'fake' rebate to play Santa Claus with our tax money to buy votes.

Let's hope that this is just the beginning for the governor. The Democrats are going to scream bloody murder. And I am glad. Because if they didn't, I would know the governor wasn't really cutting anything.

---

New Jersey Democrats' Weaselly Budget Comments

Here are my reactions to the Assembly Democrats' commentary regarding Governor Christie's budget. When I've commented inline, my comments are in italics.

Assembly Budget Chairman Lou Greenwald (D-Camden):

“I thank the acting treasurer for testifying and answering our questions. I had hoped that this would be the start of a renewed bipartisan effort to find alternatives to Gov. Christie’s budget cuts. The governor’s cuts hike property taxes, threaten health care for the middle-class and poor and forsake opportunities for federal funding.

Assemblyman Greenwald, in this statement you have merely (a) pretended that you don't support high taxes, (b) talked about not cutting funding, and (c) made the non-controversial claim that we should try for more federal money where possible. (By the way, "Federal" money is no panacea. It's still paid for by some taxpayer somewhere). Unless you show how you intend to actually make cuts, you're completely unserious about any "alternatives" to Gov. Christie's actual budget cuts.

“We will continue our efforts to slash spending, but we must do it in a sensible way that doesn’t leave us with an even higher property tax burden, more unemployment and a devastated cancer research industry, among other impacts.

Assemblyman Greenwald, in order to continue efforts to slash spending, you first have to actually try to slash spending. And if you want to promote employment and any type of industry, why not try cutting the tax burden on businesses?

“We need to be making educated decisions and taking advantage of all opportunities to obtain federal aid that is rightfully ours and will help reduce the impact on our property taxpayers.

Duh. But what cuts do you recommend?

“Gov. Christie is not doing that here, but the impact on people’s lives is worthy of a greater debate.”

By making us dependent on the New Jersey Nanny State, you and your fellow Democrats have already had a bad impact on people's lives. When someone comes along, after years of devastating Democratic spending, and offers concrete ideas to eliminate a $2 billion budget gap, the "greater debate" that you call for is really just disingenuous partisan obstructionism.

Assembly Budget Vice Chairman Gary Schaer (D-Passaic/Bergen/Essex);

“It is my hope that we can take a step forward and find ways to work cooperatively toward slashing spending but in a way that doesn't devastate our middle class, commuters, college students, seniors and our most vulnerable New Jerseyans. Everyone needs to be involved in serious bipartisan discussions if we're going to right our state's financial ship in the most judicious way possible."

Where was the bipartisanship when Assemblyman Polistina was trying to get you to stop runaway spending two years ago? You just rode over the top of him, spending, spending, spending. And now look -- our middle class, commuters, college students, seniors, and most vulnerable New Jerseyans are devastated because we can't pay our bills. Don't lay this at the feet of Governor Christie. This is your mess.

Assembly Appropriations Chairwoman Nellie Pou (D-Passaic/Bergen):

“These hearings have been invaluable in giving the public the open debate and discussion Gov. Christie’s plan initially lacked. Residents have had the chance to hear the impact Gov. Christie’s cuts will have on their lives, and they now expect us to move forward together to find alternatives that won’t hurt education and health care and boost property taxes.”

Governor Christie laid out his planned cuts in the open. What you mean is that these hearings have given you a propaganda platform to lay out anecdotes about people who are being hurt by cuts, in the hopes that these anecdotes will paper over the destructive Democratic policies of the last three administrations.

You're talking like a pro-heroin advocate who, showing a man suffering the symptoms of withdrawal, claims that we need an alternative to going off of heroin.

And again -- if you want to find "alternatives", name them. Actual cuts, please.

Assemblywoman Joan Quigley (D-Hudson):

“Gov. Christie’s plan to withhold adult education payments is just one of many examples of a short-sighted move. Ensuring quality adult education is available to those who need it not only boosts self-confidence and improves lives, but helps keep our economy in step with ever-expanding global competition. This is among the areas I hope to now see get a second-look.”

You know what else improves self-confidence? Having a job. You know how to get a job? Help businesses provide them by reducing taxes.

You know what else keeps our economy in step with ever-expanding global competition? Having more jobs available. You know how to make more jobs available? Help businesses provide them by reducing taxes.

Do you sense a trend?

Assemblyman Gordon Johnson (D-Bergen):

“Gov. Christie’s cuts send the wrong signal to middle-class New Jerseyans, but at least now we can hopefully work together to find alternatives, with the Legislature’s input valued. Cutting the budget to increase property taxes is certainly not the way to go.”

What, then, was the right signal? Was it the right signal to continually live beyond our means? Was it the right signal to continually increase services on the backs of taxpayers? Was it the right signal to put special-interest groups -- I'm thinking here of labor, in the form of Jon Corzine's fornication-toy Carla Katz, for instance -- ahead of the ordinary, non-unionized middle-class New Jerseyan?

Assemblyman John Burzichelli (D-Gloucester/Cumberland/Salem):

“Now that we’ve heard from the acting treasurer, I’m hopeful that we can work together to solve this budget shortfall in a way that doesn’t disproportionately hit the middle-class and people less fortunate with higher property taxes and more job losses.”

I'm hopeful, too. Name a way to cut two billion dollars from the budget without doing that. Christie has. Now it's your turn. Real cuts, please.

Assemblyman Albert Coutinho (D-Essex):

“We have to work together – Democrats and Republicans, the Legislature and the governor – to protect the middle-class and poor the best we can so we create as little pain as possible. I hope we will especially rethink any illogical plan to leave federal dollars on the table when hospitals in particular are struggling and NJ FamilyCare is also in line for cuts. Gov. Christie’s cuts will have unintended consequences that hurt the state of New Jersey.”

The pain has already been caused; the addiction is fully in place. Withdrawal symptoms will happen. These were caused by Democratic control of this state. You have put us here.

You may not have intended these consequences, but they are the ones you have inflicted on us. How, then, can you snivel about unintended consequences of someone who is at least trying to wean us off of our addiction?

Assemblyman Peter J. Barnes III (D-Middlesex):

“Government must be leaner and more efficient and we must reduce costs, but Gov. Christie’s cuts would hurt middle-class families and jeopardize the education of our children. Now maybe we can cooperatively find alternatives that do otherwise.”

Interesting that in all of these statements I can't find a single way to "find alternatives." Not one.

These Democrats are simpering whining weasels. Their own words convict them. I despise them.

---

NJ AG Milgram cracks down on MD's-but not politicians!

One cannot help but laugh at New Jersey State Attorney General Anne Milgram. She is very concerned over doctors that are influenced by drug corporations and wants to put a stop to it. From Philly.com:

State Attorney General Anne Milgram has recommended banning doctors licensed in the state from accepting gifts that don't directly benefit their patients, and requiring them to report consulting fees greater than $200.

The choice to put the responsibility on doctors, met with scorn from the Medical Society of New Jersey, was deliberate. The state has direct control over doctors through its licensing process. And, Milgram said, doctors should be conscious of how their relationships with manufacturers can influence care.

"It really is, at the end of the day, each individual doctor's conflict of interest as much as it is the industry's," she said.

I frankly don't care one way or another about the merits of the AG's recommendation. But I do find it odd that the Attorney General is VERY concerned over "conflicts of interest" all of a sudden. She has never seemed very interested in the past as her Democratic party colleagues were arrested and sent to jail-BY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS! You see, poor Annie isn't interested in corruption in our state by elected officials, party bosses, judges or others who break the public trust.

But God forbid Dr Smith dares to support a product who sales rep took him to dinner! Maybe during that dinner the doctor actually learned something about the product he is recommending that he didn't already know that would be beneficial to his patient. Sorry Anne.

A conflict of interest is an Assembly member receiving 96 percent of their campaign contributions by organized labor special interest organizations many of which are from out of state. Now who do you think is more likely to do something to the detriment of their partner to the benefit of the organization creating the conflict? The doctor-patient? Or the Democrat-voter?

Read the entire article here.

---

Calling the President a Liar

The Democrat outrage at Joe Wilson correctly (admittedly an inappropriate time and place) identifying President Obama's comments last week as lies has been loud and almost comical. But what about their outrage over these comments from the floor of the House and Senate (from Gateway Pundit):



and this:



or this inappropriate comment by a Speaker of the House:

---

Let's investigate Goldman Sach's alumni conflict of interest Mr Corzine

As Jon Corzine continues his hypocritical accusations of Chris Christie, maybe it is time for a real account of the ties between Goldman Sachs alumni like Corzine and government influence. From this article in the Policy Examiner:

The Times points out that Goldman alums include:

Former treasury secretary Hank Paulson
Paulson's bailout chief Neel Kashkari
Interim Treasury investment officer Reuben Jeffrey
Key Treasury players Dan Jester, Steve Shafran, Edward C. Forst, and Robert K. Steel
Key New York Federal Reserve players Stephen Friedman (head of the New York Fed board of governors, who sat on Goldman's board and owned a substantial stake in Goldman while he was making official decisions - and see this), William C. Dudley (head of the New York Fed's unit that buys and sells government securities), and E. Gerald Corrigan (charged with convening a group to analyze risk on Wall Street)

Of course, the avalance of former Goldman alumni seemed to start with Jon Corzine. From this opinion piece in the Trentonian:

That $300 million-plus that Corzine left Goldman Sachs with and used to bankroll a mid-life-crisis career change to politics was “fattened” by IPOs, says Taibbi.

He says Goldman Sachs manipulated the price of IPO stock by encouraging “best clients” to get in early at low prices and clean up before the suckers were enticed in at higher prices, driving up Goldman Sach’s take. That tactic is called “laddering,” says Taibbi.

Then, before moving on to other alleged Goldman Sachs iniquities, the writer takes a parting pot shot at Corzine. “One of the truly comic moments in the history of America’s recent financial collapse came,” writes Taibbi, when Corzine insisted, “I’ve never even heard the term ‘laddering’ before.”

Jon Corzine. Ethically challenged. Mathmatically challenged. A weak Governor. Not quite the lion we were promised (not even a cowardly lion) rather a mouse with the political courage of an anonymous political staffer the media so adores.

---

Healthcare: Alternative ideas but the White House and Democrats aren't listening!

Whenever you read in the paper that Republicans are obstructionists and the people are just complaining at town hall events, there is a common thread in the story. And it is that no one is offerring alternative ideas to the load of garbage being put forward by House Democrats and the White House. The sad thing is that there are a lot of ideas suggested to fix both the cost and the coverage aspects of healthcare that our current crop of politicians absolutely refuse to comprehend.

And all while Obama insists on demonizing insurers. The unfortunate thing is that the industry is far from healthy and is hurting in a major way. In my business, we work with all kinds of organizations and the insurance companies have been shedding employees for the past 5 years. They are not making massive profits. As a matter of fact, if you graph Barack Obama's and Chris Dodd's last eight years revenue against individual companies in the insurance industry, you will find that both Obama and Dodd fared far better in terms of growing their revennue base. The insurance industry in fact makes less than 1 penny for every dollar in premium received (Forrester research).

We have the Obama and Democrat narrative:

- Insurance companies are evil and healthcare unions are good
- Companies that provide insurance are bad and government providing insurance is good
- Competition is bad when private companies do it, good when the government fixes it
- People that speak at town halls are astroturf while union thugs beating them up are good
- Anyone questioning Democrats is fake while paid protestors are good
- Old people are bad but illegal immigrants are good
- Doctors are bad but Tort lawyers are good

It's no wonder people are fed up.

Here are some ideas that will never find their way into the debate despited being offerred up by Republicans, the insurance industry and free market advocates:

Controlling cost and adding flexibility

1. Insurance Portability. Make it a requirement that all insurance it portable. If every firm needs to accept the rule, it will be so. The insurance industry has already agreed to do this early into the debate.
2. Tort Reform. I know I know. The Democrats need to protect poor Dicky Scruggs so that he can own ten airplanes while filing bs lawsuits against doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical firms. But you cannot control costs without addressing frivilous lawsuits.
3. Drop interstate limitations on competition for insurance. Right now we have 50 different states plus the Federal government regulating insurance and blocking competition. Remove these barriers and then maybe Joe Smith in New York will stop paying 5 times what Jim Smith in Tennessee is paying.
4. Have a discussion about moving the responsibility for insurance from the employer to the employee. And help provide a transition from the business entity which will gain long term in cost control to the employee. Then the employee will be free to take advantage of the increased competition to buy the kind of coverage that will be optimal for their family.
5. Health savings accounts. Cash is king even in the healthcare marketplace. Remove the requirement to submit claims for insurance completely and the doctor can perform certain care much more efficiently and cost effectively.
6. Eliminate government based care and hospital mandates so that the private sector can stop underwriting goverment programs and citizens are not paying twice for the same thing. For example, we all pay for medicare at both the state and federal level. Then the goverment only pays the hospital 5 dollars for a 20 dollar procedure. Who pays the rest? We do through private insurance as we will get charged 35 dollars to make up for it. This is goverment competition and is contributing to our current damaged system. Obama and Democrats just don't talk about it.
7. A national fraud database to track both doctors patients who abuse the system and real penalties when they are caught.

Once costs are brought under control, we can have the discussion about insuring the 12 million people who legitimately may need assistance. Not the illegal aliens. Not people who can afford insurance but choose to keep their money in their pocket. And not the fictitious people who cannot get insurance until you really investigate their story and find out they really do have coverage.

All of these things would add to the debate but you will never hear them proposed. Why? Because they don't add power to the unions and Democrats in congress.

---

Christie. Corzine and Democrat Corruption

Reviewing the new Corzine add that shows Chris Christie leaving a congressional committee convened to attack him for alleged no bid contracts. The humorus past of this add is that it almost seems to have been prepared and filmed BEFORE Christie was "invited" to the House committee hearings. Does it not bother anyone that this heharing was convened to assist Corzine in attacking Christie.

Let's review:

1. The House has no interest in investigating Charlie Rangel accused of several tax violations and abusing housing rules intended for poor families.
2. The House has no interest in investigatiing Jack Murtha's bribe steering to his son, trashing and pre-judging our troops in Iraq and continual person of interest in a major corruption scandal.
3. The House has no interest in investigating Nancy Pelosi's accusation that the CIA lied to congress desppite evidence that it is Pelosi who lied.

But they do have time to bring in a New Jersey Federal Prosecutor who is running for Governor and also put away 128 of their friends. Curious.

---

Want universal healthcare? Everyone shoulld pay.

The debate around universal healthcare has been too slanted for too long. The current debate purports to position a new benefit to every American (FREE HEALTHCARE) allegedly paid for by "THE RICH GUY". Despite the fact that it would be impossible to tax the rich guy enough to pull that whopper off, the Democrats are pushing that line because they think they can bring along all of those voters who believe that there is such a thing as a free ride.

The real debate around this topic should be as follows:

1. Do we all want universal healthcare?
2. Should it or can it be managed by the government?
3. What track record does the government or ANY government have in effectively and efficiently managing healthcare for its citizens?
4. Would this healthcare plan be so appealing that the congressman who are sponsoring it will drop their current gold plated system and move to this new one?
5. ARE YOU PERSONALLY WILLING TO PAY OUT OF YOUR POCKET TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL?

I guarantee you, if the average person following this debate answered those questions honestly to themselves, the current approach being pushed by the Democrats would go nowhere. You see, this entire debate is about using a group of people who see a "FREEBIE" and want to take advantage. Some of these people are consumers. And some are business owners that believe that they may be able to drop the coverage the currently pay for and dump their employees into a government plan. Either way, each one want something for nothing. And as my father told me a long time ago, there is no such thing as a free ride.

---

The Real Meaning of the Tea Party Movement

Certain events cause you to think about what is going on in the world today and where you came from. Well over a year ago, Jake and I created this blog as a response to the New Jersey Governor and legislature's implementation of their massive sales tax increase. Early commenters treated us with a "grow up" kind of disdain. I am sure that their reasoning said that New Jersey citizens have always been apathetic to taxes and this would never change. We always believed that if people only knew the facts, they would respond and rise up against a culture of corrupt government that only serves itself and the politically connected. And never serves the taxpayer.

Fast forward almost two years. On April 15, we are likely to see a demonstration that none of us has ever experienced. You see, the tax tea party movement is not a pack of liberal professional protestors. It also is not a bunch of hippies looking to revisit the glory days of the 60's. The movement is made up of regular people who have not responded as expected to the anti-wealth rhetoric of the current administration and their liberal colleagues in the states.

I have been getting a steady stream of emails since our first posting of the tea party locations. While the comments section shows a lot of anonymous posters, these folks send us mails looking for help, offerring to volunteer and are generally disgusted by our state and the state of the federal government.

The media is trying to paint the tea party movement as a bunch of conservative kooks. It is clear to me that there is nothing kooky about what is going on. This movement is made up of honest, hard working, normal people who don't appreaciate the "changes" that we are supposed to believe in.

I think that the issue is that Americans at heart aspire to do better than their parents and even themselves. We are always striving to work hard and make sacrifices for our families. We don't resent the guy or lady in the fancy car that drives by, we strive to be that person. And we do not appreciate a president or governor that assumes that we want someone to take care of us. Thanks Barack and John, we will take care of ourselves thank you.

We all knew who brought us to this point and many of the same people who caused the current crisis are bathing in earmarks right now as a byproduct of the president's policies. Sure, Bush played a part. However, he has left the stage. What about those who would blame Bush but carry far more of the blame than he ever did? They are still on the stage, profiting from the crisis. Dodd. Frank. Schumer. Why don't they leave the stage?

And in the end, who is left holding the bag? Us. Hence the tea party movement.

---

Bush vs Obama Deficits

A day doesn't go by when a Democrat does not decry the "Bush Deficits" on television while promoting their alleged fiscal responsibility. I ran into an acquaintance this weekend who went off on the canard that "Bush left a deficit of 1.2 trillion dollars". I tried nicely to explain to him that he was wrong but he loudly insisted that he was right. I mentioned to him that all he was doing was repeating something he heard from an Obama administration member in the midst of passing an 8000 earmark filled budget bill that Bush would not support but Obama signed.

I believe that origin of that was Rahm Emmanuel's statement on Face the Nation-"1.7 trillion dollars" (March 1, 2009). Interesting that this diagram that has been all over the blogs laid bare Rahm's claim.



There is no doubt that Bush utilized deficit spending. However, Rahm and his boss have taken the art to an entire new level. And I think I will keep re-posting this chart every time some major Obama cabinet member decide to trash everyone who came before them.

---

Earmarks vs Porkulus

Barack Obama and congressional Democrats keep touting a canard that this wonderful stimulus bill they are ramming through is "completely free of earmarks". Let's examine that statement. The definition of an Earmark is as follows (from Wikipedia):

In US politics an earmark is a congressional provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees.

Earmarks can be found both in legislation (also called "Hard earmarks" or "Hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called "Soft earmarks" or "Softmarks"). Hard earmarks are binding and have the effect of law, while soft earmarks do not have the effect of law but by custom are acted on as if they were binding.[1] Typically, a legislator seeks to insert earmarks that direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his/her home state or district.

So if we parse the words, to be an earmark it should:

a. the direction of funds in a bill
b. be inserted by a senator or member of congress
c. to benefit their states or districts financially

I have reviewed the drafts of pieces of this legislation and the summaries. I would estimate that more than half of this entire bill is an earmark. Just because the spending size is so large that multiple senators and members of congress are taking home the loot, doesn't negate it fact that it is for an earmark.

Some favorites rumored to be in the final legislation:

- LA to Vegas train (Reid)
- $30 million dollars in wetlands preservation for San Fran (Pelosi)
- $200 million dollar power plan in IL (Obama)
- Major funds for building govt building projects in Maryland, Virginia and Georgia
- 80 billion for outright payments for state who have through their out of control spending are in financial trouble (see California, New York, Michigan and New Jersey)
- 6.5 billion for National Institute of Health as a buyout for Republic Arlen Specter


If it looks like an earmark, costs like an earmark, is hidden into legislation like and earmark with no attribution....it's an earmark.

---

Giethner and Daschle are traitors! - Joe Biden

During the last campaign, we heard from a familiar source of gaffs that people need to pay more in taxes to enact Barack Obama's agenda. In case you haven't forgotten exactly what he said, list to Joe Biden here:

">

Last week we found out that Tom Daschle didn't realize that he had to pay taxes for a chauffeur driven car given courtesy of a Democrat donor. Ask yourself, if a friend of your boss walked up to you and said, "hey dude, here's a car and a driver to do your work". Would you not question whether or not this is something you should at least mention to your tax preparer or if you don't have one, the IRS hot line. I know what they would tell you.

But that wasn't all. Daschle also receive $88,333 in consulting fees that he failed to report. This was fraud pure and simple. And today, Daschle bowed out to save Obama the embarrassment of difficult questions.

We already documented the trials and tribulations of Timothy Geithner and his tax issues. Well according to Joe Biden, they are unpatriotic. We heard all about how bad Republicans were in accusing treasonous Democrats and the NY Times regarding their extensive efforts to aid and abet the enemy. This time it is a Democrat-the Vice President speaking truth to power.

---