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.
