A good column from Tom Moran in The Star-Ledger comparing the disappointing Corzine administration with that of New York new Democratic governor, Eliot Spitzer.
Spitzer (right) has been a bulldog; Corzine (left) a lapdog.
He has time to find his inner-Spitzer, but he needs to do it quickly before the bullies that run New Jersey government roll him completely.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
A second Dispatches (two for the price of one!) is up, this one from today’s Cranbury Press. It is on the weak property tax relief offered instead of reform.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
I am of two minds on the state Senate’s failure to pass the 20 percent tax credit.
A graduated tax credit that could save the average taxpayer about $1,200 over the course of the year seemed to be better than nothing, but approving the credit might just doom further efforts to achieve real reform.
The reality is that the tax-credit plan was a sham, nothing more than a way to salvage the complete failure of the state’s tax reform efforts, to make it appear as if the state Legislature accomplished something even as all of the evidence proved the contrary.
The plan — a 20 percent property tax credit for those who earn up to $100,000, 15 percent for those who earn between $100,000 and $150,000 and 10 percent for those who earn between $150,000 and $250,000 — would replace the current property tax rebate propbram for most residents.
The plan also includes a questionable cap on property tax levies that, even with the massive loopholes attached to the bill, will do little to control taxes while tying the hands of local goverment and school boards — the entities we rely on most on a day-to-day basis.
Under the plan, the state would give money to the municipality, which would then apply the credits to individual tax bills reducing the required payments. Tenants and seniors would continue to receive rebate checks.
The plan sounds good on the surface, but has several serious shortcomings: 1) It may not be sustainable beyond 2008; 2) it does not address the way we raise revenue to pay for government; 3) or offer require any government streamlining.
This is the point that state Sens. John Adler and Nia Gill — two of the four Democrats objecting to the bill — were trying to make:
Sens. John Adler, D-Camden, and Nia Gill, D-Essex, questioned how the state would pay for the $2 billion credit program in the long run. A financial quirk gives the state government extra money to use for this year only. Adler and Gill both said the credit program, which will take the bite out of tax bills but not address root causes of high property taxes, falls short of true reform.
“If we were selling this tax package as a product, we would be in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act,” Gill said. She later added, “In plain language: We do not have the money to pay for this.”
Adler said the caps had been “gutted” and called for lawmakers to go back to the property tax reform drawing board, rather than pass watered-down bills and declare them “good enough.”
“We should step back, take a breath, ask for a do-over,” Adler said.
Taking a step back makes sense, as does the suggestion that Assemblyman Bill Baroni and state Sen. Peter Inverso — Republicans who represent Cranbury, Jamesburg, South Brunswick and Monroe in the Legislature — made to us last week:
Mr. Baroni said the state had its chance to reform taxes, and failed. He said that he would like to see a constitutional convention where citizens are elected as delegates and propose changes in the way the state taxes its citizens. The changes would then go to voters in a statewide referendum.
“The Legislature has had its chance,” Mr. Baroni said. “Now let’s let the people of ‘New Jersey do it.”
Sen. Inverso agreed. He said the Legislature has failed to make significant property tax reform, and he will continue to push for a constitutional convention.
“You have seen what happened to these proposals that have come out of the Special Session Committees,” Sen. Inverso said. “They’ve been diluted and to quote my dear friend (state Sen.) Barbara Buono, they’ve been emasculated. It shows that this process is not one where taxpayers, who don’t have a special interest presence each and everyday, are the ones that will benefit from it.”
I’ve written about this before, but it bears repeating: The four-month review of state and local government, their budgets and tax structures was a bold undertaking, but given the swirl of interests in Trenton and their fear of change, it was doomed to failure.
In the nearly three months since the release of the joint committees’ findings and recommendations, we have learned that the state Legislature cannot be trusted to overhaul the system.
It is time to let taxpayers have a whack at it.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
Leave it to a bunch of politicians to find a way to water down a reform so that it doesn’t apply to them, only to those who will eventually replace them. That’s what has happened to a proposed ban on dual office-holding, which will grandfather in current members of the state Legislature and only apply to new members or those who seek a different office (an Assembly member running for Senate, for instance).
The grandfather clause may have been necessary to garner enough votes (doubtful, but for the sake of argument we’ll allow this to go uncontested), but it certainly was not the right way to go about cleaning up government.
State Sen. Tom Kean Jr. (R-Westfield) wants to change that. Kean, who lost a bruising U.S. Senate race to Robert Menendez, told the Jersey City Reporter that dual office-holding is an “‘absolute conflict of obligations’ that gives certain politicians too much power.”
There are 18 members of the state Legislature who currently hold another elected position — or 15 percent. This does not include the handful of others who serve as school superintendents and in other similar positions. This raises questions about whom they serve first — exactly the point that Kean is trying to make.
David Rebovich, managing director of the Rider University Institute for New Jersey Politics, describes Kean’s arguments this eay on PoliticsNJ:
Kean is interested in consistency, claiming that if the practice is wrong as most legislators apparently believe — after all, they do want to ban it for others — then there is no justification for grandfathering people in except political expediency and favoritism.
Beyond consistency, Kean makes several other arguments for getting rid of the practice. He believes dual office-holding leads to higher property taxes. This is a tricky point. Local officials who are also legislators will fight for more state aid for their communities and school districts. But presumably they will also tolerate more bureaucracy and public employees at the local level because they are part of the establishment there. Kean also notes that dual office-holding concentrates political power among fewer politicians which gives them a large power base from which they can thwart discussions for reform and changes in various policies.
In addition, Kean claims that holding a local and a state office creates conflicts of interest. For example, state legislators may not support policies that are good for the entire state, but not for the local political establishment, because such support may jeopardize reelection to their local office. As such, the system of checks and balances between levels of government can be compromised by dual office-holders. Will mayors who are also legislators support plans for municipal consolidation or merger
that may save taxpayers some money but cost themselves and their political allies their local government posts? Will they empower a state comptroller or other officials to flesh out wasteful and perhaps illegal spending in municipal governments or schools, or will they try to protect these jurisdictions from such scrutiny?On these terms, the advocacy role played by legislators who are also local officials may undermine the ability of state government to exercise its constitutional authority over substate jurisdictions and to root out inefficient and ineffective policies and programs. Lastly, Kean complains that dual office-holding limits the number of people who can serve in government and its representative quality by making it harder for women and minorities too gain office. More people and different types of people in government typically mean more views expressed and perhaps a livelier, more productive dialogue about policy issues.
I’ve been rather critical of young Kean, especially for the manner in which he attacked Menendez during the campaign, helping to drag an already ugly race deeper into the gutter. But his proposal — that dual office-holders be forced to relinquish one of their elected posts in January 2008 — makes sense. I would strengthen it a bit further, though, disqualifying anyone who holds a management-level public job (school superintendent or assistant superintendent, township manager, sewer authority director, etc.) from holding a legislative office (and a county office in the county in which they work).
It’s time to make them choose.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
I was lukewarm to the need for a constitutional convention on tax reform — as most progressives had been — but like the folks at Blue Jersey, I’ve come to see it as the only way we can get past the political inertia.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
Hank Kalet 