The numbers are mind-numbing. As of June 2009, the state's pension systems faced unfunded liabilities of $45.8 billion. That number assumed an annual 8.25 percent return on investments, an actuarial standard that many experts are now declaring as unrealistic. In the past decade, the pension system averaged 2.56 percent a year, not nearly enough to keep pace with projected costs.
More pessimistic assumptions about rates of return peg the pension system liability as high as $173.9 billion - not to mention some $55 billion in unfunded health care costs.
Experts and officials have begun to say it more clearly: There is no way New Jersey will ever be able to pay for the promises it has made to current and retired workers.
Let me tell you a story:
Back in the '90's, Jim Florio played a little actuarial game with pensions and the state budget. Christie Whitman was happy to play along when it was her turn to (not) lead, especially since she had a booming market to help. Of course, when the market tanked, everything turned to dreck, but by then she was in Washington. Jim McGreevey did little to help; Jon Corzine, to his credit, made some contributions, but backed off when things got really bad. Now Christie won't pay anything into a system he says is "broken."
Everyone who knows anything about our pension problems knows this part of the story; now let's add something else:
Governor Christie appeared on the Sean Hannity Show last week after the budget passed and it was the usual love fest. But I was more interested in how Hannity helped Christie lie about his budget some more. Check out this question and response from Christie's appearance Wednesday night:
HANNITY: You know, look, $70 billion wealth leaving, $11 billion budget deficit. All right? So - there's always those people that make the argument that the only way that you're going to increase revenues is to increase taxes or increase fees.
You resist that. So then the question is - and I'm a supply-sider, but I want you to explain it in your words. How do you increase revenues? How do you close that budget gap if you can't raise taxes?
CHRISTIE: Well, it's pretty simple...
Notice I emphasized the "or increasing fees." Because as if it's not bad enough he's continues misleading saying his budget won't increase taxes, when story after story shows that is absolutely false, even he has admitted people will pay more in fees. From his Budget Bill signing the other day, Zach Fink got the first question at about 20 minutes in this video:
Fink: Democrats have characterized some of the revenue raisers as amounting to a tax.
Christie: Well they're not a tax. I mean you know, they're user fees. In the main those things were users fees and the folks who use government ought to be paying for it.
We've already written about the words games this administration is playing to not admit they are raising taxes. It becomes that much more simple to do when you flat out lie about doing it before select audiences. Here's a little video mashup I made of the situation:
Retweet? @CoryBooker - do you have comment for @BlueJersey on ACLU charge of Newark transparency issues? - http://bit.ly/aSKiqg --- promoted by Rosi (link's corrected, thanks MJ)
Two weeks ago, amid news of layoffs in Newark, the City and its taxpayers took yet another financial hit: a high dollar verdict for a former police officer mistreated by the Newark Police.
A jury awarded Darren Nance $600,000, finding that the Newark Police had racially discriminated and retaliated against him.
Once lawyers tally up interest for this verdict, legal fees for his attorneys, plus the two private law firms hired to defend Newark, this case will likely cost millions.
Most cities rely on insurance to cover misconduct-based payouts, but Newark is deemed too high risk to qualify for a policy. Instead, these payouts come out of the pockets of Newark taxpayers. And for every case like Nance's that goes to trial, many others settle out of court behind closed doors.
It is difficult to know, therefore, the full financial impact of police misconduct on Newark taxpayers. We're also left in the dark about the details of the misconduct at the center of those cases, and whether the officers involved are sanctioned.
This is a shame because lawsuits - especially settled ones - can reveal dangerous practices in a department. And when individual officers are openly held accountable for the misconduct, it can deter others from engaging in similar acts.
To determine how much police misconduct cases cost Newark, and shed light on the underlying abuses, the ACLU of New Jersey has combed court databases, City Council minutes and other public records to find settlements.
We found that since January 2008, nine lawsuits by Newark police officers against the City were settled, with the settlements totaling $1,696,503. These cases primarily involve discrimination and retaliation.
Lawsuits from officers are just the tip of the iceberg. In that same time period, Newark awarded at least 23 payouts to citizens filing lawsuits over mistreatment ranging from false arrest to death in custody. Those, too, come with a hefty price tag - $766,617 from the 18 cases for which we have settlement amounts.
More cases are coming through the pipeline. We have identified 27 pending cases ordinary citizens have filed against the Newark Police since January 2008, and seven more filed by employees.
And there are likely others; since information about these lawsuits is not publicly disseminated or maintained in a centralized placed, we couldn't find every case filed against the Newark Police.
The costs go well beyond finances, of course. Lawsuits aside, police misconduct jeopardizes community safety and erodes the trust officers need from community members to effectively protect and serve.
But money matters, too, especially during a budget crisis. If the money Newark spends to defend and compensate for police officers' mistakes went towards reforms instead - training, technology, and resources for police - it would save money, lives, and public confidence in the long run.
The ACLU-NJ has an unwavering commitment to both government transparency and sound police practices. For the public's benefit, starting today, the ACLU-NJ will publish "the dirty dozen" of these cases on our website - representing some of the most egregious claims of discrimination, retaliation, beatings, and internal affairs corruption. We will release one a day for the next twelve business days. Many of these settlements have never before seen the light of day.
Darren Nance, however, got his day in court. He started his career as a Newark police officer in 1989 and encountered racism in the department after just a few months on the job. He spent the next seven years fighting for his rights, until the Newark Police fired him in 1996.
The jury verdict for Nance, along with these settlements, demonstrates that justice for police abuses can indeed come. But it also demonstrates a disturbing pattern: we see the abuses described in Nance's complaints from 15 years ago repeated in the settlements and pending lawsuits of today. The ACLU-NJ, which turned 50 this year, has fought the same kinds of abuses against Newark Police since our founding; change is overdue.
The only way to prevent the same mistakes, the same wounds, and the same payouts from the same stories is root out their sources. Otherwise, the citizens of Newark will continue to pay for bad apple officers who engage in abusive conduct and for managers and elected officials who fail to fix the underlying problems.
Promoted by Jason Springer: Check out Hank's take on the tax cap and other budget issues. What are your thoughts?
The governor spoke before a joint-session of the state Legislature today and reiterated his desire to see a constitutional amendment be placed on the ballot that would limit tax increases to 2.5 percent -- or, barring that, a state law that would do the same.
Gov. Chris Christie calls it tax relief, but it really is nothing more than an abrogation of executive and legislative responsibilities and an admission of failure.
On News 12, their Kane in your corner segment took a look at the Governor's budget and put it to the truth test, see which promises he kept and which ones were broken.
It's amazing to watch the Republicans make up words to hide their tax raising after years of decrying tax increases. It's even more amazing to see many in the media carry their water as they do it. The new editor of PolitickerNJ takes a look at these words games:
Several bills sponsored by Republican lawmakers seek to raise fees on various functions in an effort to balance the budget. Each Democratic legislator who rises to speak on the bills makes a point of calling the revenue a "tax" and chiding Gov. Chris Christie for going back on his promise not to raise taxes.
In defense, Republicans continue to repeat the mantra that the budget includes no increases in broad based taxes, but instead cuts $4 billion in spending without turning to income tax hikes.
See the GOP wants to argue semantics and play word games, rather than focus on the obvious impact of their actions. When faced with people pointing out the fact they're raising taxes, we get this:
Republicans counter the charge, using terms like "user fee" and "filing fees" to describe the charges.
Just because the Republicans say it doesn't make it true. Rosi highlighted yesterday all the increases people will be paying for as a result of this budget. Now Christie is saying they're just user fees because people use the services. The bottom line is whatever words you use to describe it, people will be paying more and the media needs to stop letting him get away with saying anything different.
Chris Christie said many many a time that he would not raise taxes. And yes, this was a transparent promise that very few (outside of some of the hardcore conservatives) took seriously in any way. But when he first was sworn into office and raised "fees" or increased charges for the same services, cut property tax rebates and did a slew of other things that would result in tax increases - the cat was out of the bag.
It wasn't "raising taxes". It was "raising CERTAIN taxes" that was the issue. On others who were out of favor in Christie's class warfare, it didn't matter if you were paying more for less (like public transportation, for example) or if you were getting less in tax rebates - it was part of the not-quite-so-shared sacrifice. And when the millionnaire's tax was introduced and promptly vetoed, Christie said the following:
"Now is not the time for more of the same. Ultimately, another tax increase will punish the state's struggling small businesses and set our economy further back from recovery."
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, and there is the rub. It isn't JUST another tax increase - it is a tax increase that Christie knows will hit him and his cronies, so therefore, it must be vetoed. Now fast forward to this draconian budget and even his fellow Republicans have called this budget full of tax hikes.
So now we know that Christie was pushing his fellow Republicans to vote for his tax hikes. It was just a matter of which tax hikes he wants - on everyone who isn't super duper rich. And when he tries to say how "fees" aren't taxes and how he won't raise taxes, he is either lying or leaving out the words "on the super wealthy" after the words "I won't raise taxes".
Either way, Christie's true colors of a bully and a liar are showing through, yet again.
The Governor and members of the GOP keep saying, and the mainstream media keeps repeating that Chris Christie won't sign a budget that raises taxes. But even Steve Lonegan knows that's a bunch of nonsense. Check out this quote about what Governor Christie is really doing:
"The idea that this Governor is cutting taxes and spending is a complete myth. New Jersey taxpayers are facing a massive $2.56B tax hike which is a direct result of this Governor's reckless cuts to state aid. Homeowners across the state are about to get slammed with one of the biggest property tax increases in state history. This Governor's budget is going to do untold damage to New Jersey's already fragile economy. People are going to be hurt."
Ut oh... Steve Lonegan said what Republicans, the press and even some Democrats aren't willing to say: "the emperor has no clothes." Christie can try to talk tough all he wants about campaign pledges and even use his shrill statements to veto taxes on his millionaire friends, but make no mistake - Governor Chris Christie is raising taxes.
Now, here is a personal story about how the 2.5% cap would have affected me. I was a classified student at my old school district. There was no suitable program within my home state, and thus, I had to be placed in an out-of-state program.
This has a lot to do with this because school districts cannot predict what special needs students may have, and given that the local educational authority MUST give students, as per NJ administrative law, a free and appropriate public education. And rightfully so!!! School districts shouldn't have unreasonable caps placed on them, for they need to prepared for students with special needs.
Or what about police! Certain areas have certain needs which can't always be predicted.
So, why did I take the initiative to create bumper stickers!!! Because...
1. I am hoping to nip this in the bud as soon as possible
2. I want to see a "No on 2.5%" meme before the yes crowd, because unfortunately, it will be hard to shoot this down, given the complexity of the issue.
Over the past month or so, there was talk about how there would be an additional $250 million less in revenue in NJ. And while there was much fingerpointing and silly-talk about NJ's position compared to other states in terms of taxes, once again, there hasn't been the willingness from Governor Christie to actually lead in an area where it is so simple to take common sense actions.
It's already been a joke that Christie says he is not going to raise taxes, as there have been reductions in tax credits for lower income families (a tax increase), increases in "fees", elimination of property tax rebates (tax increase) and of course increases in costs for public transit and an entire slew of other areas. So here, there has been some interesting information coming out over the past week that pokes more holes in the Christie arguments, while making it painfully obvious that this is not an administration that is interesting in seizing the day to become a truly transformative administration.
Last spring, New York State adopted a three-year increase in their income tax rates. They created a new 7.85% bracket at $300,000 and a new 8.97% bracket at $500,000. This was significant for New Jersey because our residents with New York income pay tax to New York on that income and then take a credit for those payments against their New Jersey liability...Last spring the Division of Taxation, using actual taxpayer records, attempted to simulate the effect of the New York change. They concluded that New York's action would cost us about $300 million in FY2010 and both the Administration and OLS used that estimate in our projections.
We now suspect that the simulation rested upon an incomplete understanding of the New York State law....
Now, there is more in the testimony explaining this in boring tax detail, but the one thing about all of this is that Christie's State Treasurer, Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff was the former Commissioner of Tax and Finance for New York State from 2003 - 2006. I can understand a misunderstanding of New York tax law - trust me, as I am a CPA. But when the state Treasurer is the former Commissioner, and the budget numbers are off by $250 million, that raises serious questions.
I'll address two more points, one as a potential fix, and one to combat the hyperbole coming from the right. First, the potential fix. In this article, there is mention of "tens of billions of dollars (nationally) in taxes being improperly avoided through abusive corporate tax strategies. Most states counter these strategies by forcing corporate parent companies and their subsidiaries to file "combined tax returns". New Jersey is not one of them - but Governor Corzine recommended this during his term. Most states in the northeast and west of the Mississippi River have combined reporting, so this isn't isolated or "radical" either. While this is a proposal by the Better Choices for New Jersey Campaign, it is not (as far as I can see) on Christie's agenda, even though it is common sense, widespread and can save the state hundreds of millions of money, at least, by countering abusive corporate tax policies.
The last point I want to make deals with the relative taxes of NJ vs. other states. I'll focus on personal income taxes - and even use Christie's favorite right wing tax think tank - the Tax Foundation as a reference. Using the 2010 tax rate schedules (without the tax rate that Christie eliminated for the super rich), New Jersey has a tax rate of 5.525% on income from $40K - $75K, 6.37% on income over $75K and a rate of 8.97% on income over $500K. Let's contrast to a number of other states:
Arkansas: 7% on income in excess of $32K
California: 8.25% on income from $37K - $47K, 9.55% on income in excess of $47K, 10.55% on income over $1 million
Delaware: 5.55% on income from $25K - $60K; 6.95% above $60K
And that was just a select few, not including local income tax rates which substantially increase the overall tax rates in MD, OH, KY, PA and MI.
So let's get real about taxes - it is the property tax system (not merely the rate) that needs to be dealt with, in addition to ending corporate tax abuses. And let's end the canard about New Jersey taxes, unless you want to talk specifics and be honest.
The following is the text of a letter I sent to my (Republican) State Senator and Assemblypersons. Feel free to re-use any or all of this.
I am writing to urge you to override the Governor's veto of the Millionaire's Tax.
His veto is based on two false premises:
1) Raising taxes on the wealthy will cause them to move out of New Jersey
2) His pledge during the campaign not to raise taxes.
Since this tax was already in existence under the previous administration, one can assume that those wealthy people who felt that their tax rate overrode the benefits of living in New Jersey have already moved out of state.
The pledge made during his campaign has already been broken by his passing down more expenses to the non-wealthy. For example, the increase in NJ Transit fares is no different to a wage earner than a new tax.
Sometimes, elected officials are called upon to do what's right instead of what's politically expedient. Making the solution to New Jersey's fiscal woes falls into that category, and retaining the previous tax rates for the wealthiest citizens is essential for the Governor's "shared sacrifice" to have any meaning.
If the amnesiacs driving the current policy debate will remember, during the campaign, candidate Chris Daggett proposed a tax plan reform package.
At the time, I naively had hoped that Daggett's analytical policy based approach to politics would change the Trenton conversation and force media to engage the substance.
And for a fleeting moment in late September it did.
Daggett's plan ran in detail on page one Star Ledger, and the media actually engaged the substance of an issue.
But man was I wrong in terms of Daggett's ability to alter the conversation and inject more substance into media and the political debate.
It was amazing how quickly Daggett's plan fell into obscurity.
After just weeks, things reverted to the same old politics.
This only opened the door to the Christie "shock doctrine" (N. Klein) and retrograde ideological attack on all things public (while diverting attention away from the finance industry Wall Street types that caused the economic collapse at the heart of the state budget crisis).
Amazingly, while the rest of the country is in populist outrage over the greed of Wall Street and the obscenity of the taxpayer bailout while homeowners are foreclosed on and Main Street is ignored, the cowardly corporate NJ democrats and media have allowed Christie to stand reality on its head: attack teachers, librarians, and social workers as the greedy ones!
In addition to Wall Street anger, the whole world can see how failure to regulate BP led directly to the gulf oil disaster - and a mine explosion that killed 25 workers. (Tuesday nite, PBS Frontlinewill run a story about how cost cutting and lax safety regulation results in plane crashes).
But, despite this hugely visible reality of what happens when safety and environmental regulations are gutted for corporate profits, Chrisitie is allowed to target environmental regulations (aka "red tape") as the cause of the recession.
In the Orwellian Chrisitie world, it's not Wall Street, corporations, and deregulation that are to blame, it's greedy teachers, ibrarians, unions, and environmental regulations!
So, let's bring back the Daggett analytical approach to policy and re-examine key aspects of the Daggett plan.
This would include a focuse on broadening the sales tax to the currently untaxed service sector to better fit the shift in the economy. This would levy the burden on those in the financial sector that are most able to afford to pay.
Of course the Daggett plan would have to be modified to include restoring the $400,000 income threshold (no need to raise it to a million, which was a ploy to support a slogan "millionaire's tax") and get rid of his call for corporate and wealthy tax relief:
The candidate's plan, which he devised over several months using independent studies and state budget numbers, also would reduce corporate taxes by $750 million and income taxes on the state's wealthiest residents by $620 million. To compensate, Daggett proposed eliminating $1.6 billion in property tax relief programs like rebates.
Independent N.J. governor candidate Chris Daggett proposes overhaul of tax system
New Jersey is not unique. Nation-wide 48 states are facing budget deficits, and because they have to balance their budgets, they must cut spending and/or raise taxes. Both approaches take money out of the economy making the downturn worse. However, two highly regarded economists, Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University, and Peter Orszag, director of the federal Office of Management and Budget, have written that spending cuts could actually be more harmful for a state's economy during a recession than tax increases. Furthermore, "The conclusion is that, if anything, tax increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism for closing state fiscal deficits in the short run."
When NJ government cuts spending its impact is local. State, municipal, and county employees are let go, contracts and grants to small businesses and non-profits are reduced, local unemployment increases, and all businesses in the state suffer as a result. The costs to the state of increased or continued high unemployment are significant. The damage is particularly severe to the most vulnerable who suffer severely from cuts in services and transfer payments, such as public transportation, health care, and homestead rebates. The economy as a whole is harmed when programs such as job retraining, bridge construction, and environmental protection are reduced. The negative impact of these cuts is magnified at a time when state revenues are decreasing, unemployment is high, and the economy remain in serious trouble.
Increasing taxes, on the other hand, provides NJ with more revenue to reduce some of the negative impact of whatever cuts are essential. Fortunately, the effect of increasing taxes impacts less on the local economy. As Stiglitz and Orzag point out, "Part of the decline in purchases that would occur if taxes were raised would be a decline in the purchase of goods produced out of state." Likewise, taxes that can be charged to out-of-state residents, such as gas or road toll fees, increase revenue from non-state sources.
Increased taxes aimed at the wealthiest has the least negative impact. This group has higher savings and investments and so can more easily meet its essential needs, as opposed to the less wealthy who face day-to-day difficult purchasing choices. As the wealthier tend to buy more out-of-state purchases, such has reduced impact on NJ. If they need to tap their savings, their expenditures further help our economy.
Jon Shure, founder of NJ Public Policy has said, "When the recession hit New Jersey, it was like a tornado hitting a house that was already falling." Indeed property taxes, past increases in sales and income taxes, and general over-spending has put us in a difficult position. We of necessity will have to make budget cuts. However, in the midst of a severe recession, budget cuts like self-inflicted wounds will slow down our recovery. Tax increases, particularly those impacting the wealthier and the out-of-state, have to be a part of a sound recovery plan.
I'm not as up to speed on New Jersey politics as I should be. So I had some free time today and spent over an hour listening to the Assembly debate on the Millionaire's tax. As far as I can tell, the Republicans are putting forward two arguments:
1. Taxes destroy jobs
2. The rich will move away
These are well-established unproven Republican talking points. As far as the first point is concerned, we have seen that under the Bush tax cuts, jobs have disappeared. On the second point, I suspect that the uber-rich already declare their homes to be in places like the Cayman Islands or Wyoming. No one has presented any solid evidence that this would have a significant impact.
It seems like the Republicans' mantra of no taxes is more of a religion than anything else.
Anyway, it just passed. Will watch the next steps with great interest.
Despite his mantra of being a tax cutter, Governor Christie continues raising taxes. The most egregious example is the increase in fares for New Jersey Transit. This not only hits those who can least afford it, but discourages use of a more environment-friendly mode of transportation.
Now his actions will result in an increase in fees for beach tags.
Probably not a big difference to most people, but just another example of GOP hypocrisy. They are raising taxes - but just on those who are not wealthy. And another blow to New Jersey tourism.
Well it's about time. Governor Christie was on with Don Imus yesterday and he made an admission that contradicts just about everything else he's said about not raising taxes:
On raising property taxes:
"We've got to put a cap on property taxes. We've got to get teachers' unions and others to step up to the plate and contribute and sacrifice. That's what we're trying to prevent. Some property taxes will go up but not nearly as much as they would have if people hadn't gone out and voted on Tuesday and voted 'no.'"
Oh, so some taxes will go up? I'm not shocked to learn that, but stunned to hear the Governor finally admit it:
On how much New Jersey property taxes will go up this year:
"Property taxes will go up a little bit this year, I don't think there is any doubt about that. It'll be under 4 percent."
I hope the media, who has continued to let Christie and his supporters parrot the talking point that raising taxes is not an option were watching.
I would also like to share a persynal story about how I became active in higher education advocacy. In the Fall semester of my junior year at Ramapo College way back in 2005, I made the mistake of voting for Jon Corzine in the gubernatorial election (I corrected that by voting for Dagget in 2009, and I still have his bumper sticker on my car as a repudiation of Trenton politics)
Anyway, in Spring 2006, Corzine announced massive budget cuts to higher education and schools were mobilizing. However, my school was lazy to mobilize, due to the discouragement of these actions by our alternate student trustee, Steve Bloom. He was basically resigned to the idea that the state was in fiscal trouble and thus, strong armed members of student government as well as other groups on campus to not go along with me. Unphased, I went down to Trenton and was the only representative from my campus.
I was invited to speak about something close to my heart. At the beginning of the academic year, I joined the nascent student-run recycling program at Ramapo, and a couple of months later, spearheaded an expansion into 3 dorms (we decided to do door-to-door because the recycling bins in the trashroom were being contaminated constantly, so much that I put up flyers telling students to instead put their recycling out in front of the doors once a week). Well, we had plans for expansion when these budget cuts happened, and our supervisor, Carmela, who was a sustainability coordinator, was being 86ed by the administration. I had a chance to talk about this unique program, and at the end, Assemblypersyn Diegnan shook my hand and complimented my story (as well as the bandana I was wearing).
So, even if you are not a college student or public school teacher, I suggest you get out and support education.
According to estimates released today by the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services, Chris Christie's budget will mean higher taxes for middle class families in New Jersey, but a massive tax cut for those making over $1 million.
Families making $200,000 per year or less should expect a tax hike. Christie's budget will raise taxes by more than $1,000 on families making $75,000 per year or less. Meanwhile, the New Jersey's wealthiest families can expect a generous tax cut. A family of four with an annual income of $500,000 will see $1,500 in savings. A family making $1.2 million in 2010 will see a tax cut of over $11,000.
Christie's cuts to homestead rebates and earned income credit directly increase taxes on middle class New Jersey families, and his refusal to consider renewing the millionaire's tax will substantially reduce the tax burdens of rich families who aren't exactly struggling in economic downturn. His tax policies will shift much the burden of paying for state and local government away from the rich and onto the middle class and the poor:
A family of four making $40,000 to $75,000 or less will pay 12% of their income to state and local taxes, up from 10% or less. These families will pay a greater percentage of their income in state and local taxes than wealthy families will.
Senate Majority Leader Steve Sweeney rightly slammed the Governor for his misplaced priorities:
The Governor keeps talking about a budget based on the concept of "shared sacrifice". But this analysis proves what Democrats have been saying throughout this process: The sacrifices in this budget are being made solely by the families who can least afford them.
Sweeney and other Democratic leaders have correctly taken a stand against Christie's proposed tax cuts for the wealthy. Democrats must make it clear that they will not approve a budget that raises taxes on middle class families struggling to cope in a difficult economy while cutting taxes by more $10,000 for the rich.
It's been a while but here is another New Jersey blog roundup. Let me know what you are reading and I missed. Last week people were thinking about taxes, and of course the state budget remains the main interest of Jersey writers.
Senator-turned-columnist/blogger Robert Torricelli takes a poke at newspaper editorial boards who approve Christie budget cuts while never mentioning getting millions of taxpayer dollars themselves.
Jason Method at Capitol Quickies notes that while Christie continues acting like a bully, Christie's appointees strike a softer tone. Bully is my word, not his, Mr. Method is a professional.
I never subscribed to the first sentence of Thoreau's famous essay "Civil Disobedience "(1849).
That lede has been misleadingly overplayed, in terms of distracting from more central points of his essay and it also has served to legitimize certain anti-social individualistic, anti-government, libertarian views:
I heartily accept the motto, - "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe, - "That government is best which governs not at all", and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.
When will men ever be "prepared" for pure anarchism? Even if they were sufficiently altruistic, would some form of communitarian organization be preferable? But I digress from the point I am trying to make with this Tax Day post.
Thoreau was a strong opponent of the Mexican invasion, and he advocated withholding of taxes as a form of protest - civil disobedience. It was not taxes and government, per se, that were his primary issue concern, but rather his moral revulsion at slavery and the deep injustice of the Mexican war. His conscience and his sense of personal responsibility forced him to not contribute to those efforts in any way.
That principled equality, anti-war, anti-imperial stance and Thoreau's civil disobedience tactics have not been so relevant since the Vietnam War. Thoreau wrote:
If one were to tell me that this were a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probably that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. ... But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun, and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact, that the country so over-run is not our own, but ours is the invading army.
Now think of these words in terms of the huge black population now in prison and segregated in hopeless urban ghettos.
Think about US army invasion, war, and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Think of the irresponsible and corrupt failure to respond to global warming.
Thoreau targeted the political source of the problem (as did Martin Luther King over 100 years later in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" where he scorned well- meaning white liberals, and called for direct action non-violent civil disobedience). Thoreau wrote:
Those who, while they disapprove of the character an measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support, are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform.
Thoreau realized that real social change depended upon individual integrity, which in turn required the courage to act upon one's convictions - and take bold conscience based actions that put one at risk:
Action from principle, the perception and performance of right, changes things and relations, it is essentially revolutionary, and does not consist wholly with anything which was.
Thoreau realized that the individual exercising his conscience in action against the state would be treated harshly and unjustly, particularly the poor and powerless compared to the elite (are there not echoes today in Wall Street bandits not going to jail while millions of young black men serve long prison time for crack cocaine?):
If a man who has no property refuses but once to earn nine shillings for the State, he is put in prison for a period unlimited by any law I know, ... but if he he should steal ninety times nine shillings from the State, he is soon permitted to go at large.
Thoreau laid out the test and summed up the individual's duty to take action - a call to action that remains extremely relevant today (and echoed in the equally famous "body on the gears" speech by 1960's Berkelely free speech movement leader, Mario Savio. Thoreau wrote:
If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth, - certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.
