Rising property taxes are a problem across the country, according to The Wall Street Journal. I wish that made me feel better about the mess here in the good old Garden State.
It doesn’t, of course. I just wish it did.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
A story in today’s Record of Hackensack explores the kind of conflicts that state legislators who also hold local or county offices face, placing their divided loyalties within the context of the state budget.
New Jersey legislators who hold other elected offices face a dilemma as they consider Governor Corzine’s budget: Vote to do what is best for the state as a whole or what best serves their community.
At issue in the proposed budget, of course, is a series of cuts that could have huge consequences at the local level — in particular, a reduction in aid to municipalities. State Sen. Paul Sarlo, for instance, is both the mayor of Wood-Ridge — which is losing $393,602 in aid — and the vice chairman of the Senate Budget Committee; Sen. Steven Sweeney is a Gloucester County Freeholder and member of the Budget Committee; and Assemblyman Gary Schaer, vice chairman of the Assembly Budget Committee, is council president in Passaic — a city slated to lose about $1 million in aid. What concerns will they bring to the discussion and how will they weight the various arguments? Will aid to their communities be saved at all costs — and what would those costs be?
All three gave an indication of the lens through which they plan to view the issue:
“We are able to demonstrate what the unintended consequences of this cut would mean,” Sarlo said. “It’s not just my district, it affects the entire state.”
Does that mean the aid will be saved? The governor already is signalling a change of heart, though he has been adamant about keeping spending at last year’s level and not increasing it. If aid is increased, what gets cut instead?
Already, the governor has proposed shutting some state parks, eliminating the state Department of Agriculture and cutting aid to hospitals and colleges, so reinstating the aid without increasing spending will be difficult, especially when all of the other constituencies are pushing to reverse their own cuts. And that does not take into account the desire among some — antipoverty groups, for instance — for new programs.
Legislators who hold multiple offices may argue that they are in the best position to understand the needs of their dual constituencies, but that argument fails when you consider that many legislators, such as Linda Greenstein, Joseph Vitale, Kevin O’Toole and Peter Biondi, served at the local level, giving them a pretty good handle on how state actions affect local government.
The reality is that dual office-holding is a conflict of interest, creating dual loyalties and an expanded power base that could result in Sharpe James-style corruption.
“When all is said and done, the reason you don’t have dual office-holding is it’s a basic conflict of interest,” said Ingrid Reed, director of the New Jersey Project at Rutgers University’s Eagleton Institute of Politics.
That inherent conflict is often overlooked because the possibility of pension-padding and double-dipping gets more attention, Reed said. Yet she believes the conflict-of-interest issue is the strongest argument against the practice, and when legislators have to consider how an issue will affect their different constituencies they have already crossed a line.
“Dual office-holding is about that clarity of who do you represent,” Reed said. “It’s very difficult to be fair and not have a conflict.”
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Let’s face it: No one likes the budget that Gov. Jon Corzine has proposed to the state Legislature.
No one likes his proposal to close the parks or his plan to eliminate the Department of Agriculture. No one likes his aid cuts to towns, hospitals or colleges.
But the state is broke. It is facing a massive recurring deficit and something needs to be done.
Is the governor taking the right action? Is this the correct approach to follow?
I don’t know. But pain is the one given in this discussion. Someone is going to have to pay and pay steeply.
The key thing is that the governor has asked that those criticizing his cuts, trying to reverse them, come up with alternatives. Many of the groups have failed to do that, even with the governor saying that more cuts maybe necessary to offset a shortfall in revenue. Many, like the state’s mayors, complain that the cuts will lead them to increase taxes (purposely ignoring the tax cap imposed last year that limits the amount any town can increase municipal tax levies or the impact that school aid increases will have on overall tax bills in many towns).
That’s why I like this story. Many of the state’s progressive interest groups are working to alter the priorities in the governor’s budget, seeking to reverse some of the cuts but offering other cuts and new revenues to replace them.
Contending Gov Jon Corzine’s proposed cuts to the state budget will raise property taxes and hinder public services like health care, higher education, tenant protection, road repair and outdoor recreation, a coalition of 20 citizens’ groups today proposed increases in state income, gas, gambling and liquor taxes and motor vehicle fees to raise approximately $2.28 billion.
“If this budget goes through, we will see longer emergency room waits, higher property taxes and shuttered parks and libraries,” said Eva Bonime, director of the New Jersey Working Families Alliance and coordinator for the new coalition, Better Choices for New Jersey. “This budget makes the wrong choices for working families.”
The coalition is proposing increasing the state income tax on the top 10 percent of wealthy households to raise approximately $500 million. It wants to increases in the gas tax as well as in driver’s license and motor vehicle registration fee to raise $1.4 billion.
The group also wants to close what it sees as corporate tax loopholes and re-evaluate business subsidy programs to raise $300 million. And it wants to see liquor and gambling taxes increased to raise $80 million. Coalition leaders said they have not settled on the specifics of their proposals.
“Better choices means looking at sensible revenue options to fund the services and investments our state depends on,” said Jon Shure, president of New Jersey Policy Perspective. “These are fair, realistic and environmentally sound ways to meet New Jersey’s needs.”
Business groups reacted with criticism — which was to be expected. They are more concerned with maintaining the benefits they get from the state than with the general welfare of the state’s poorest residents.
The question is how the governor and state Legislature will react. No one argues with the need to cut spending. But it is foolish for the state to attempt to close such a massive budget hole by relying only on spending. No one wants to pay more, but I can’t see how we can avoid it.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Dispatches is up. It is on paid family leave.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
There has been much sturm and drang over the state’s paid family leave proposal, including criticism from one of the state Senate’s more liberal members and a full-out assault by the state Chamber of Commerce.
And yet, the legislation has now passed both houses of the Legislature and is on to the governor, who has stated publicly that he plans to sign it into law.
Given the opposition from the business community and the way in which campaign cash tends to trump belief in the Legislature, the
The plan is pretty simple, according to The Star-Ledger:
The paid family leave act (A873) would allow workers to apply for up to six weeks off to care for a newborn or newly adopted child, or a sick parent, spouse or child, and collect up to two-thirds of their pay, up to a maximum of $524 a week. The benefit would be funded by an average worker contribution of about $33 a year, levied through a mandatory employee payroll tax.
Basically, it is similar to unemployment or disability insurance, money that workers will pay into a fund that will assist them in crisis situations. The state federal governments already grant family and medical leave. But that leave is unpaid and too often forces workers to choose between a paycheck and their families.
Consider the son or daughter who must take care of an ailing parent, or the parent dealing with an ailing child. As things stand, they could take the time without pay; under the new legislation, they would get some compensation — and, despite the business community’s complaints, it should do businesses little harm.
The biggest problem with the bill is that it had been revised to address the concerns of small businesses — while the bill would require companies with more than 50 employees to hold a position for a worker on leave, it offers no protection for workers at smaller companies — which is why Sen. Shirley Turner (D-Trenton) opposed it.
“This bill is discriminatory and unfair,” said Sen. Shirley K. Turner, D-Mercer. “Those individuals working for small employers are not given the same rights as everyone else, although they have to pay. … This is taxation without participation.”
I think the bill is a good start, but Turner’s criticisms must be addressed. Every worker must be given protection — especially if they are being required to pay into the new system.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 