Voting no, no and no

The Xpatriated Texan on BlueJersey explains why he — and I — will be voting against the three New Jersey public questions tomorrow:

First and foremost, the Constitution is not supposed to be a budgetary document. It is the fundamental law of the land. It shouldn’t be changed at the whim of economic winds. It should set forth the general principles of our society. Dedicating money to one fund or another simply doesn’t measure up to that level.

Second, we just closed down the government a few months ago because we couldn’t agree on how we should close a $4.5 billion dollar deficit. If we slice up how this money is dedicated, how will that help us close this gap? Short answer: It won’t. In fact, we will have to raise taxes somewhere else in order to replace the money we are re-directing.

Third, it is the responsibility of our legislature to create a balanced budget document. We should fully fund the Transportation Trust Fund and we should fully fund property tax relief and we should fully fund our parks and recreation services – but we can already do that in the normal budget process. The fact that these services are lagging behind is a reflection of the values of the people we send to Trenton. Constraining future legislatures with a Constitutional amendment simply allows them to dodge the responsibility for matching their priorities with ours. Let them decide whether to fund these vital services or to give their buddies another over-paid no-show job – and then vote accordingly.

Fourth, the percentage of the state budget controlled by the state legislature is somewhere around 15%. Constraining the legislators this far hasn’t helped, and I don’t see any benefit to doing it further. From my limited analysis of New Jersey budgeting, the problem is not that the New Jersey legislature doesn’t have money to spend – it’s that it chooses to spend the money it does control on stupid things. It’s that it has, all too often, totally abrogated its responsibility to exercise oversight once it appropriates money.

I understand the desire to constrain the legislature so that certain vital services are maintained. But once we start, where do we stop? Unless we truly want to fix the entire budget by Constitutional amendment, it makes no sense whatsoever to approve these questions.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

Author: hankkalet

Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie. View all posts by hankkalet