I read Tom Moran’s column this morning on NJ.com with a weary sense that I’d read it all before. The argument, which was pretty much on target, was that the governor and e Democrats are doing the state a disservice by pushing a fiscally irresponsible tax cut that will make a lot of people happy heading into a state election year, but will have disastrous effects down the road,
The argument alludes to a state history in which all the players dismissed reality, crafting fiscal policies that ignored the anticipated impacts for short-term gain at the polls. This is what created the sense of deja vu I felt.
To understand where we are, we need to remember where we’ve been. In 1990, shortly after he was sworn in as governor, Jim Florio proposed what was then the largest tax hike in state history. It was designed to plug a looming deficit and address an anticipated state Supreme Court ruling that would force the governor and Legislature to equalize spending for urban school districts.
The response was a tax revolt, which ultimately led to the election of Christie Whitman and a massive income tax cut that was paid for via a revaluation of the state’s pension plans, which in turn was designed to allow the state to shrink its payment obligation.
Jim McGreevey doubled down on Whitman’s sleight-of-hand, with an assist from a Legislature willing to boost benefits without any thought being given to paying the bills.
Richard Codey and Jon Corzine both took small steps to fix the imbalance — very small steps — before Christie came in and used the imbalance as a political cudgel. He forced reforms — some of which were needed — but also made it clear he wasn’t going to keep making payments. That has resulted in a widening of the gap between obligations and funding and a fiscal disaster not too far off down the road.
The problem here — and Moran is as guilty as anyone following this — is that we have defined the pension problem as one of payouts and not one of funding. Public workers, under his paradigm, are the cause, their too-generous benefits bankrupting the state.
Had someone had the guts 17 years ago to call Whitman on her shell game — and then to hold her successors to the same standard — we might be having a very different discussion.
Instead, we have a governor who attacks public workers and wants to cut taxes for the better off in the state, a Democratic majority interested only in re-election and voters as shortsighted as the politicians about whom they endlessly complain.
Hank Kalet 