Gov. Chris Christie’s budget speech yesterday has been given high marks for toughness — even as level-headed a columnist as The Star-Ledger’s Tom Moran bought the governor’s reform rhetoric. But was this speech about reform? Was it about rebuilding the state’s fiscal ship and setting it sail once again?
Budgets, as we wrote in our editorial this week, are about policy. Money underscores the priorities. Jon Corzine, for instance, offered budgets that were essentially progressive — expanding the earned-income tax credit and children’s health care, for instance.
Chris Christie’s budget, on the other hand, is a fairly straightforward example of the Grover Norquist, anti-government approach — given a push by the state’s fiscal woes. Consider the cuts — to education, to municipal aid, to higher education, the earned-income tax credit, unemployment insurance, along with a tax cut for those making $400,000 or more.
Christie is, based on the numbers, a rather doctrinaire conservative.
Christie knew what he was doing when he crafted his speech, using a series of conservative memes that have become ingrained in our political culture to push his critics back on their heels and to prepare make it seem as though anyone who opposes his so-called reforms is part of the problem.
The defenders of the status quo have already begun to yell and scream. They will try to demonize me. They will seek to divide us rather than unite us. But even they know in their hearts, if not yet in their minds – it is time for a change.
The language is key. The governor is the one doing the demonizing, getting out in front of the train and beating his critics to the punch. It is not the governor who is yelling and screaming and dividing, but the teachers’ union, the “defenders of the status quo.”
Some are saying, by their choice of policies, that we should descend further into debt and deficit, and risk driving more people out of the state with “temporary” tax increases that always turn out to be permanent.
Some are saying — the straw man, the critic without a face, the one that cannot be defended. Who makes up this “some”?
No one is arguing for more debt and there is significant debate over the accuracy and reliability of the studies showing this massive outflux, as the governor calls it. And not all critics are defenders of the status quo.
Let’s be honest here. The state’s budget problems, as the governor acknowledges in passing, are at least 20 years in the making. They are bipartisan, created by a series of politicians unwilling to speak clearly and frankly: Since the massive overreaction that greeted Gov. Jim Florio’s tax increase in 1990, New Jersey politicians have been tax averse. At the same time, they have been unwilling to say no to anyone, offering often necessary services and putting their cost on the credit card.
If you want services, you must pay for them. That’s what our elected officials should have been saying for the last two decades. If you’re not willing to pay, be prepared to give up the services you have come to value. It is a simple equation.
So Christie is not wrong when he says the bill has come due. But his rhetoric — his claim to be the fiscal avenger — rings hollow. He appears less interested in fiscal health than in breaking the backs of the public employee unions, more concerned with shrinking not only state government, but local government and shifting much of its responsibilities to the private sector.
Christie’s tought talk masks what I see as bad faith. He is not speaking frankly, but offering the kind of false promises offered by his predecessors. I can cut government down to size without affecting services, without affecting the quality of your children’s education, the length of your commute, the freshness of your air. And if these things are affected, it is not his fault or the fault of his brave budget-cutting administration. It is the fault of the New Jersey Education Association and the other public sector unions.
Christie talks tough, but he isn’t being frank or honest. Honesty demands that he acknowledge the devastating impacts of his budget cuts, of the sacrifices he so blithely says are being spread evenly and fairly. It demands that he take responsibility for the fallout.
- Send me an e-mail.
- Read poetry at The Subterranean.
- Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.
Hank Kalet 
It is a total myth that people are fleeing NJ in droves. From 2000 to 2008, NJ's population increased by 3.2% (from the US Census).A flawed 2007 Rutgers study claimed that NJ was losing population. Mary J. Forsberg, in a 2007 NY Times article, pointed out that the RU study left out immigration and the birth rate which offset anyone fleeing NJ. NJ is still gaining in population but the rate of growth has slowed down. But growth is growth, we are still the most densely populated state in the union. Another myth is that businesses are fleeing NJ, too. Why the hell would they flee NJ when they have all these great sweetheart deals, tax breaks, tax abatements and gifts at the tax payer expense. The businesses are fleeing NJ myth is propagated to get even more tax breaks for the corporations, they are greedy, they are not satisfied with the current tax holidays they get.From the NYT article:\”The United States population has grown by nearly 18 million people since 2000 and 40 percent of this growth is immigrants from other countries. New Jersey benefits from this, having the fifth-largest immigrant influx of any state. The Rutgers study ignores these people. It does not point out that New Jersey's population has actually grown by 310,213 since 2000. Nor does it mention that the number of people coming to the state from other countries is greater than the number who have moved from New Jersey to another state. Census data not found in the Rutgers report reveal that nearly 360,000 people have moved to New Jersey from other countries; just under 278,000 have moved to another state.\”NJ has the highest percentage of millionaires than any other state and NJ has some of the richest counties in the US.Christie is engaging in disaster capitalism. He has a great economic disaster with which to beat up on the unions and public employees. Just as the Katrina disaster was used as an excuse to privatize so much of the commons in New Orleans. The teachers and the public sector workers, as well as their unions, are actually the victims. The pension fund was not paid into for 11 of 15 years. The teachers paid in about 6 billion to the pension fund in all those years. Christie is out to destroy the unions and if he succeeds, the chamber of commerce will be dancing in the streets and cracking open the champagne bottles. The low information non-union morons will also cheer this on as their wages and benefits continue to be decimated. What's the matter with Kansas (NJ)?
In Feb., the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce (pro-corporate shills) and the Community Foundation of New Jersey released a report they commissioned from the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College. This BS study is being used by these pro corporate lackeys to \”prove\” that wealthy people are leaving NJ in droves. Another frikking damn lie. The NJ CC is promulgating these lies to scare New Jerseyans to be nicer to our rich folks and big corporations. We must give them even more tax breaks because the millionaires are more deserving than us mere mortals. So don't even think about a living wage, a minimum wage or family leave, how dare you. And as for unions, pffft! You're fired.From the NJ Policy Perspective web site:\”To the contrary, the number of high income households in the state has increased sharply during this period.Actual tax return data from the New Jersey Department of the Treasury confirm that the number of tax returns with incomes of $500,000 and above has been growing. The current recession may tell a different story in more recent years, but in 2007 (the most recent data available), 48,500 tax returns were filed with incomes of $500,000 or more. This is nearly twice the number (25,500) filed in 2002. In each year since 2002, the number of these high income returns has grown. Their collective income in 2007 was $76.9 billion and they paid $4.6 billion in taxes to the state. Although their income was taxed at a top marginal rate of 8.97 percent, they paid an effective rate of 6 percent ($4.6 billion/$76.9 billion).\”
Christie, being a radical right wing ideologue, is pushing charter schools which amounts to privatizing the school system but with public money, with our tax dollars. The real reason he wants charter schools is because they ban unions, do not allow unionization.Hey Chris, NJ has a top rated public school system and is in the top tier of states with good school systems. Studies have been made that found that overall, charter schools do no better than the public schools and in many cases do worse. So what's the real reason for charter schools? Oh yeah, union busting. If you want to start a charter school, fine, but I don't think you should get public money. Diane Ravitch, once an advocate for charter schools, is now not so sure and has had serious second thoughts because they are doing no better than the public schools.CC will destroy our public school system and demoralize the teachers and administrators. Heck, many of them will be fired. Disaster capitalism and the shock doctrine. If this were France, all the unions would be on strike now and shut down the whole damn state. Did Christie take a benefit cut, pension cut? He was a US attorney, did he take a benefit and or pension cut from that position?
The funding for charter schools will not be touched. What happened to that shared sacrifice thing? Oh yeah, some folks and entities are more equal than others. Tax cuts for the wealthy and the big corporations, check, A-OK.