It's going to be difficult to keep track of all the promises that Governor Christie breaks, which Candidate Christie made if things keep going as they've started. Lets see what candidate Christie said:
The last thing Chris will do is to follow Corzine's lead in eliminating property tax rebates for 1.2 million New Jerseyans. The rebate currently is the only property tax relief we have, and it provides much needed, meaningful help while we put in place other reforms. We keep the rebate in place to give taxpayers some breathing room in these tough economic times.
Not only wasn't he going to cut, he was going to restore the cuts he said Corzine had made to the program, even though people said he numbers didn't add up. During the primary, Christie attacked Steve Lonegan with a radio ad saying he would get rid of property tax rebates to differentiate his position. But now Governor Christie has a new plan and it could be his latest broken promise if he follows through:
Gov. Christie is considering scaling back or eliminating property-tax rebates in his budget proposal, a move that could yield significant savings but would mean going back on a campaign pledge.
Democrats wasted no time pointing out Christie's latest flip flop and Joe Cryan remined people that it was Christie himself who called reducing property tax rebates 'a declaration of war on the middle class' and pointed to what Republican leaders said just last year
"After all, I couldn't agree more with a key Republican leader who just last year said cutting rebates 'is actually a tax increase' that 'will take money out of people's pockets and continue to drive middle class taxpayers and senior citizens to bankruptcy.'
"That same leader also added, 'It is of great concern when people cannot rely on the governor to keep his word.'
Adam has documented some of the other examples where the middle class will take it on the chin from decisions the Governor is making. Christie is trying to say he has no choice, but while he was handed the problem he is choosing the solutions he wants to go with. Christie's fantasy land promises are coming back to bite New Jerseyans in the ass. And in many cases, its those residents that can least afford that are feeling the burden. He'll continue to say he's not raising taxes, but it's really a word game because at the end of the day, we're all paying more and getting less. It's simply a transfer of who is footing the bill.
The Asbury Park Press has a story today titled, "Can Christie keep his promises," talking about how he swore not to raise any taxes. How can he keep his promises if he's already announcing plans to break them? Even his proposal for the unemployment cutbacks still leave him raising taxes on businesses, which everyone knew he would have to do, but they're not even bothering to mention in the story?
Not even in office for a week and Chris Christie is already raising taxes on New Jersey businesses - a tax hike of up to $1,000 per employee.
New Jersey's Unemployment Insurance Fund will be $1.6 billion in debt by March, according to Christie. Business taxes are automatically increased by law when the fund's balance goes below a certain level as measured every March.
---snip---
The fund is in such a precarious position because approximately $4.8 billion has been diverted for other purposes since 1992. Voters will have the ability to stop future raids through an amendment to the state's constitution on November's general election ballot.
I (as others) warned that he would cost employers tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in state and federal unemployment taxes (see the links above), and sure enough - he wasted no time in selling small businesses and the teabagging crew down the river. Let's take a short trip down memory lane
There is little doubt that we (Tea Party and grass roots organizations) helped decide the election in Chris Christie's favor. Exit polling showed that Conservatives voted for Christie by five to one and Independents by almost 2 to 1. I am proud and privileged to be among those who helped lead this charge.
I wonder when the teabagger crew will call Christie out for one of his first acts as Governor being a massive tax hike on employers.
By no means are we in great shape, but for the 2nd straight month tax revenues have exeeded estimates and expectations:
Better-than-expected income tax collections in December helped New Jersey make up for sagging sales and business taxes, leaving the state's monthly revenue 1.4 percent above expectations, according to a report the Treasury Department released yesterday.
Overall, New Jersey pulled in nearly $2.76 billion in December, up from the $2.72 billion budgeted, according to the report. That gives the state a small reprieve after several months of missed targets prompted outgoing Gov. Jon Corzine to make several emergency spending cuts and readjustments.
The sagging sales tax revenues point to some of the additional difficulties facing the economy as it recovers. Here is a breakdown of the tax revenues:
Image courtesy of screenshot during NJN News
These numbers are exceeding already lower projections and we are still far off last year:
Total revenue in December was down 1 percent from a year ago. Sales tax during the holiday shopping season was down 3.3 percent from a year ago -- which had been the worst holiday sales season in decades -- and 6.4 percent under budget for the month.
The state stands 2.9 percent -- or nearly $373 million -- below budget. The biggest revenue sources are income and sales taxes.
So while this is good news in the short term, the long range concerns still continue to persist. At this point, people will probably settle for any good news they can get. They also released some good news on the pension fund front:
The state also said after a bad 2008, pension funds finished 2009 up 19.8 percent.
Mark this down as Christie's first big mistake. Because he has just given his opponents a legitimate reason to resist his budget cuts, and a chance to seize the moral high ground.
Every time he cuts spending now, his opponents can point to that tax cut for the rich, which is worth roughly $1 billion.
Democrats have wasted no time jumping on the issue:
"He'll give millionaires a tax cut, but he doesn't want to give more aid to food pantries?" says Sen. Steve Sweeney, who will take over as senate president next month. "We will definitely point that out."
That will be the contrast people will draw as he proposes cuts. He's not the only one who already pointed that out:
Take Sen. Joe Vitale, chairman of the Health Committee. He's spent years working to expand health programs so working poor families can get coverage. Now the Christie team is warning eligibility standards will be tightened to save money.
"He's got to take a step back from that tax cut," Vitale says. "This is reverse Robin Hood. You're taking from the poor and you're giving to the rich. I'm telling you that just won't happen. This is going to be one long summer."
Today is the first day of winter and we're already predicting a long summer. Something tells me there will be alot more where this came from as Christie takes office and we start to see him introduce his policies and proposals.
The Corzine campaign is out with a new web ad this evening hitting Chris Christie over comments he made to the New York Times saying that he's breaking his campaign promises before he even gets elected to office. First, from the NY Times article:
Regarding property tax rebates, Mr. Christie now says he cannot fully restore them - though his commercials omit this qualifier - and that he will send back the money only "on a sliding scale depending on what the economic conditions were." He explained the turnabout by saying he was "prioritizing out of a set of bad choices."
Referring to looming deficits, he added, "It's not like I can click my heels and say, 'Make the bad stuff go away.' "
The change is one of several recent reversals. Mr. Christie now also disavows a promise, made in a primary-season debate, to roll back a sales tax increase. He has backed away from a pledge to avoid using "one-shot" revenues to close the budget deficit. And he is now deferring until later in his term plans to eliminate a business tax surcharge, cut income taxes across the board, identify a permanent financing source for open-space preservation and restore higher-education financing to 2002 levels.
His biggest surviving pledge is to roll back Mr. Corzine's tax increase on people making more than $400,000 a year.
One of the main reasons environmental groups went with Christie was because he supported a permanent financing source for Open Space. So now he not only opposes the bond question, but won't come up with a permanent solution as promised. And what happens if a Christie economy doesn't get better? Do those choices get deffered to the next Governor? Here's the ad:The Democrats have been all over Christie's comments to the NY Times today. Assemblyman Greenwald had this to say:
"It's amazing that Chris Christie has waited until only four days before the polls open to admit that his entire economic plan was built on a foundation of sand," said Greenwald (D-Camden). "The more Christie tosses his grandiose promises of the spring under the wheels of his campaign bus, the more it becomes obvious that his proposals were meant only to make good sound bites, not sound fiscal policy. New Jersey couldn't afford Christienomics in the 1990's, and we can't afford it now."
And Assemblywoman Quigley didn't miss the chance to hit Christie for his latest broken promises:
"It only took 268 days since he threw his hat into the ring, but with four to go until the election Chris Christie has finally come to terms with the devastating fact that his fiscal platform is a non-starter," said Quigley, a member of the Assembly Budget Committee. "But now he faces an even more painful reality: telling prospective voters that his entire plan was a mirage."
He may have only formally declared 268 days ago, but he's been running for much longer than that. It's amazing that of the few specifics he does give, they always seem to get him in trouble. He lost his shared values in the course of a "website re-design", he tried to delete the words mandate-free from his website altogether and since he can't hide the fact that his fiscal don't hold up when exposed to the real world, he's backing away before he can even implement them.
As a tax guy, I tend to gravitate towards analyses of tax issues, and there certainly hasn't been a shortage of them. And while the first 2 parts of this series focused on the Governor's race, this part will focus on the APP and it's recent attempt to act as teabaggers.
It is true that NJ property taxes are very high. It is also true that it is a result of a very complex and convoluted system that requires major overhaul - and while Chris Daggett's plan is interesting, it doesn't address some of the very large and fundamental issues.
That being said, the APP has gone "all in" when it comes to taxes - but on any level of analysis, it is less substance and more cheerleading for protests and feeding off of the bordering-on-violent hysteria that we all saw this past summer. I'll highlight three things in this post that at best, show irresponsible journalism and at worst, can be classified as an "in-kind donation" to the Republican party.
The "Tax Crush Series"
While I won't go into all of the issues noted in each of the 8 days, there are a couple that I want to highlight. On Day 1 of the 8 Day "Tax Crush Series", there was a link to "How to Fix New Jersey". Sounding noble, it lists a number of "solutions", however they range from far fetched to outrageous. Things like Convene a Constitutional Convention (not ever going to happen) to Cutting Expenses (which the APP admits won't do anything to cure any property tax costs) to Shuffle the Tax Structure (which Daggett's plan does but takes from the property tax and higher wage income tax and shifts to a higher sales tax base) to Leaving the State (way to support NJ) are the proposed "solutions" - none of which do much other than stir up more angst and frustration.
On Day 3, the top story puts blame on unions - a favorite target of FOX News and the Republican party, and also cites the much debunked "people are leaving the state" argument. Both of which are tried and true "blame game" actions and not much else - even more since a basic google search will debunk both of these claims.
The "Action Plan"
Short of actually sponsoring and organizing teabagging parties, the APP posted its "Action Plan for Citizens as an OpEd shortly after its 8 days of riling up its readers. Ironically, after the 8 day "Tax Crush Series" finger pointed and complained, the article started with the following:
Are you ready to stop complaining about your taxes and start doing something about them? Here are some ways to fight back
Search the online comments section for other outraged people to make yourself more angry. That's responsible. It's quite clear they're pushing a partisan agenda, which while not surprising is still disappointing, because now more than ever we need real reporting to inform the readers of the complex issues facing our state.
Some of the "action items"?
Make noise. Let your elected officials know you are out there, that you're angry and that you want them to lower your tax bills.
So the first action item after "ready to stop complaining" is to complain and complain loudly. Others noted include:
On Tuesday's editorial page, we will publish a survey we will provide each of the candidates for state office in November. It will ask them to state their three most important ideas for reducing taxes and government spending, and which of the 20 points in the Asbury Park Press/Gannett New Jersey tax relief plan they would push for if elected. The candidates' responses to the surveys will be posted at APP.com. If you don't see their response, badger them until they have completed the survey.
Organize. Join together with neighbors and friends who feel the same way you do about unaffordable taxes. Plan letter-writing campaigns, protests, rallies and other actions that will demonstrate to your elected officials that you will not go away until things change.
So....you should stop complaining and (1) complain loudly, (2) "badger" your local office candidates and (3) organize protests, which is complaining loudly together with others who are angry.
How responsible of the APP.
After the jump, I'll get into APP's call for "A Citizens' Army".
Following yesterday's release of the New Jersey horserace numbers, Quinnipiac has put out their poll on state issues. Their data will be the basis of press stories, but I think it's worth looking carefully at just what voters were asked.
But first, the other horserace. The State Legislature approval-disapprove numbers are bad: 25-62. I'd say people know who controls the Senate and Assembly too: Republican voters are at 10-78, independents at 17-73, and Democrats at 44-41. Just 3% of likely voters are "very satisfied" with "the way things are going in New Jersey." Total satified-dissatified with New Jersey is 32-67. How many Assembly races will these numbers affect? There's no generic ballot in this poll.
President Obama's job approval is at 55-40, so his slide has stopped.
Considering solutions to the budget crisis and other problems, Quinnipiac ran a number of possible policies by the voters.
1. Make noise. Let your elected officials know you are out there, that you're angry and that you want them to lower your tax bills.
Look of course no one is happy about taxes, but lets see them encourage people to try and understand the problem we actually have rather than just inciting more anger. They continue with their steps in the plan:
3. On Tuesday's editorial page, we will publish a survey we will provide each of the candidates for state office in November. It will ask them to state their three most important ideas for reducing taxes and government spending, and which of the 20 points in the Asbury Park Press/Gannett New Jersey tax relief plan they would push for if elected. The candidates' responses to the surveys will be posted at APP.com. If you don't see their response, badger them until they have completed the survey.
Yes, badger your representatives and candidates until they complete the Asbury Park Press survey of their very own tax plan. Why do a newspaper even have a tax plan, they're supposed to report on the plans of others. They continue:
5. If you, your friends or neighbors have been involved in any anti-tax initiatives at the federal level, draw on those experiences to help organize networks or build on existing ones to keep the pressure on Trenton.
Go find national anti-tax people so they can add to the complaints, because that will help solve the problem. How about keeping the pressure on the newspapers to report the news, not make it themselves? And let's not forget the step in the action plan where you find other people who read the Gannett newspapers:
6. Network with people who have expressed views similar to your own in the "Tax Crush" series Story Chats and the Sound Off portion of our online "Tax Crush" section. Join forces, work together.
Search the online comments section for other outraged people to make yourself more angry. That's responsible. It's quite clear they're pushing a partisan agenda, which while not surprising is still disappointing, because now more than ever we need real reporting to inform the readers of the complex issues facing our state.
General Election day may be over a month away still, but voters will head to the polls tomorrow to decide the fate of $440 million in school construction projects. From the NJ School Board Association:
In the same way families across the nation are seeking to make their homes more energy efficient, school boards are proposing questions asking voters to approve energy-saving initiatives. Ten of the 25 bond referendums on Tuesday's ballot specifically cite new windows, doors, boilers or HVAC systems; another eight seek solar panels.
For example, the Pennsauken School District proposes to demolish a school built in 1925 and replace it with the district's first energy efficient "green" school. Ocean City School District's Web site says its project would include replacing a 40-year-old electrical HVAC system with a more efficient gas system that is expected to save over $1.5 million during its lifespan. Solar projects are proposed in school districts in Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Monmouth, Salem and Union counties.
Of the total $440 million that is being requested, more than $157 million would qualify for state aid, either through one-time school-construction grants, annual "debt service aid" payments to school districts, or rebates through the state's Clean Energy program.
"This is the most school construction activity we've seen for one day since September 2005," said Mike Yaple, an association spokesman who has been tracking such referendums for a decade. "We're edging up toward almost half-a-billion dollars in school construction proposals. That's quite a bit."
I'll put the full list of districts and projects below the fold. The School board association says that this Tuesday is one of five dates available for special elections each year and the next eligible day is December 8. Do you usually vote in these school referendums?
Bloomberg had a story looking at whether Governor Corzine is avoiding the backlash of the latest budget. They talked about the recently released Public Mind Poll and said this:
Sixty-four percent of voters said it was a good idea to raise taxes on wine and liquor, and 55 percent said they support Corzine's plan to scale back the property tax deduction on the state income tax. Fifty-two percent also said they support a wage freeze and unpaid leaves for state workers.
In an April 7 PublicMind poll, 72 percent said they would rather curb spending than raise taxes.
"I expected more backlash and I expected less support" for raising taxes, said Peter Woolley, director of PublicMind. "It goes to show you that people are happy to tax other people."
The Governor's people had to be happy seeing this story and these poll numbers considering everything that has been in the news and on the agenda lately. While the overall numbers haven't been desirable, some of the internal statistics can be looked on in a more positive light.
Great catch, vmars. Promoted from the diaries - - Rosi
The headline for the NY Times article about the NJ budget passing took the Republican message and shouted it to the world:
New Jersey Passes Budget Fueled by $1 Billion in Tax Increases
But buried in a parenthetical phrase in paragraph two is the news about the shrinking budget (emphasis mine) :
The bulk of the new revenue in the budget, which is $4 billion less than the current budget, will come from a one-year increase in the income tax on people making more than $400,000 a year, or roughly 61,000 residents. Taxes will go up by 12.5 cents per pack on cigarettes, and 25 percent on hard liquor and wine. People who win $10,000 or more in the lottery will see their good fortune taxed as well.
Four billion dollars is a 12 percent reduction in the state budget, which to my mind is big news. To the liberal NY Times the only news is that rich people making $200,000 or more will have to pay a little more in taxes.
It's not until paragraph five that we find out the vast majority of people will see no tax impact or see a benefit. Keep in mind that the median household income in New Jersey is $67,142.
By contrast, those making less than the state median income of $82,000 stand to be largely spared.
Wait, well more than half of New Jerseyans will see no increase in their taxes? But the headline and lead is about people making $200,000?
And also buried in article is the reason why the budget needed to have an increase in some taxes. Here's the entirety of paragraph six:
The increase in taxes was necessitated by a $5 billion drop in revenues, due largely to Wall Street?s collapse.
Oh. So a national, international economic collapse necessitated a major change in the budget equal to 15 percent of this entire budget. Corzine and the Democrats were able to make up this massive shortfall which was not their fault by making drastic budget cuts.
Put another way, 80 percent of the $5 billion in lower revenues was made up by budget cuts, and only 20 percent by increased fees, taxes and reduced rebates.
So the New York Times, in covering how New Jersey made up a massive shortfall due to outside forces, focuses on 20 percent of the changes made, the 20 percent that Republicans are focusing on.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Lonegan is just being honest. And that's the problem. Lonegan, a hardened conservative who is running well behind front-runner Chris Christie, is pushing a 2.9 percent flat tax as a replacement for what he calls "the state's destructive and progressive income tax."
Taxes will go up for those making over $400,000 per year.
Pre-school expansion will be delayed.
Only a fraction of the pension contribution will be made.
There probably won't be aid to the unemployment fund.
These moves are said to be temporary. Republicans are already denouncing the lack of property tax rebate checks in press releases, saying other things should be tried first. I'd say with furloughs, pay freezes, etc. just about everything is now being tried.
Assembly Budget Chairman Lou Greenwald put out the following statement:
Now, being that my area of expertise and what my "real" job has focused on for the past 17 years is employment taxes, including state unemployment taxes, I (1) was waiting for a republican to pounce on this, and (2) knew what the real deal is with the unemployment fund. So, it gives me a bit more pleasure to combine my work and political lives and smack down republican ignorance in the process.
Background
The "tax hike" is something that is automatic and was written into the NJ unemployment law many many years ago, and is based on something that pretty much every state that calculates unemployment tax the same way that NJ does faces as well (around 30 states). Unemployment tax rates are calculated using a certain formula (which is irrelevant for this purpose), but based on how much is in the overall unemployment fund, any of a number of "rate schedules" or "rate tables" would be used. I believe NJ has 5 rate schedules, and as a contrast, NY has around 10, CA has around 8, while some other states have more than 10. When the state
"unemployment reserve fund" hits a certain level, or dips below a certain level, a particular rate table automatically kicks in. In good times, a rate table with lower rates is used, and in bad times a rate table with higher rates is used in order to replenish the depleted unemployment reserve fund.
It should be noted that these laws are rarely changed (NY changed its laws in the mid 1990s, and that is rare). So, the use of various rate tables is something that shouldn't be pinned on the Governor (Democratic or republican) or the Legislature (Democratic or republican).
NJ's Unemployment Reserve Fund
Here is where it gets interesting. In good times, employers should get a break on their unemployment taxes - and in many states they do. NC and TX drastically reduced their unemployment taxes in the 1990s, and many states used the lower rate tables. As a result, less unemployment taxes were paid, and the fund grew at a lower rate, although there were less unemployment claims, so the fund decreased at a lower rate as well. During these times, the rate tables used (I believe) were relatively consistent. However, beginning in 1993 (under Whitman - the republican Governor), approximately $4.6 BILLION was diverted FROM the state unemployment fund, thereby decreasing it further. Most of this was diverted to pay for years of unfunded hospital charity care, but millions were also diverted to pay for other budgetary shortfalls and expenses.
However, 2 very interesting things happened when Corzine became the Governor - both of which we will see either ignored or twisted around by republicans looking to score a cheap hit while not realizing how outlandish their claims are: First, Corzine stopped this practice with his first budget in FY 07, and second, he actually transferred hundreds of millions BACK into this fund in order to avoid the kicking in of a higher tax rate table earlier:
In an effort to avoid a business tax increase, Governor Jon S. Corzine today said he would redirect funds into the state's Unemployment Trust Fund which pays unemployment insurance benefits to workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
This is the second such payment ordered by Governor Corzine in the past nine months. In June 2008, Governor Corzine added $260 million to the fund to avoid triggering a business tax increase that would have approached $400 million in July of 2008. He is now adding another $270 million to help avoid triggering the tax increase this coming July.
The level of resources in the fund changes weekly as revenue comes in and benefits are paid out. During this national economic crisis, benefit payments in New Jersey, as in most states, have outpaced revenue into the UI Trust Fund.
In the 14 years from Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 through FY 2006, approximately $4.7 billion was diverted from building the reserves of the UI Trust Fund and those dollars were put to other purposes in the state budget. Governor Corzine ended that practice in his FY 2007 budget.
Over the next few weeks and months, we will no doubt hear about how Corzine is "hiking payroll taxes for NJ employers". However, this could not be further from the truth - not only is this out of his control, but he was the only Governor since this practice started under Whitman's administration to NOT ONLY STOP DIVERTING FROM the unemployment fund, but also to DIVERT MONIES BACK INTO THE FUND in order to avoid such a tax hike for employers.
Let's see if Christie or other prominent republicans join Tom Wilson aboard the misrepresentation express and show their ignorance for how one of the most basic and uniformly applied taxes that all employers pay in every single state works - and what the impact of a sagging economy, coupled with diversions from the one fund meant to dictate how much in unemployment taxes are paid does to that fund. But my guess is that since republicans don't ever look far enough down the road (like Corzine did when he replenished the fund that had been depleted over the prior 14 years), they won't see this - after all, most of these diversions occurred on their party's watch.
This past Tuesday, Chris Christie managed to rattle off nearly every talking point his campaign has put out in this short interview on Your World with Neil Cavuto. Cavuto pointed to the NJ Republicans ability to pull defeat from the jaws of victory and also brought up Lonegan, questioning whether Christie is and should be worried about him. When asked if Christie would support the millionaire's tax, he cited Reagan and Kemp saying he'd cut taxes across the board, what a shocker. Even Cavuto wasn't buying the fixation with Ronald Reagan, to which Christie defended and fell back on his talking points again:
While some were busy teabagging yesterday to make their statmement, a report was released looking at the burden of taxes that is shifted to everyone else by corporations with offshore accounts. Here's the executive summary:
Many of the largest corporations in our country hide profits made in the United States in offshore shell companies and sham headquarters in order to avoid paying billions in federal taxes. The result is massive losses in revenue for the U.S. Treasury - which ultimately must be made up by taxpayers. The debt of a few is transferred to many - and to future generations. The U.S. Senate confirmed in the recently-passed fiscal year 2010 budget resolution that the use of offshore tax havens by large corporations "means that honest taxpayers face a higher burden."
Here's more from the report on the prevalence of offshore tax havens:
The practice of using offshore tax havens has flourished in an era of increasing secrecy and dangerous deregulation. Lobbyists for corporations with offshore tax havens have been able to count on the fact that the missing revenue is never tallied and therefore
appears as though it never existed.
Taxpayers finally have some indication that this era is coming to a close, both here and abroad. According to the GAO, which is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress, over 80% of the biggest U.S corporations maintain revenues in offshore tax haven countries, where there are no or nominal taxes and minimal, if any, reporting. The names on the list are familiar: American Express, A.I.G, Boeing, Cisco, Dow, Hewlett-Packard, J.P. Morgan Chase and Pfizer - among others.
The United States loses $100 billion per year to offshore tax havens. They go on to break down the burden that is transferred to the taxpayers on a state by state level and find that New Jersey is on the hook for $4.49 billion in the shifting of the tax burden to the taxpayers. It's not like the state could use that money or anything. The report recommends the federal government fix the unfair burden by closing the loopholes in the tax code that allow the use of offshore tax havens. Maybe next the protesters can throw tea bags and party outside these offshore tax havens.
Promoted by Jason Springer: vmars goes off on the Republicans in NJ and nationwide.
I made a small change [see parens] in the text below to make it appropriate for Blue Jersey, but here is a damning paragraph from today's Gail Collins' NYT column. It slaps around the GOP anti-tax mantra by noting, well, check it out ...
Louisiana has gotten $130 billion in post-Katrina aid. How is it that the stars of the Republican austerity movement come from the states that suck up the most federal money? Taxpayers in New [Jersey] send way more to Washington than they get back so more can go to places like Alaska and Louisiana. Which is fine, as long as we don't have to hear their governors bragging about how the folks who elected them want to keep their tax money to themselves. Of course they do! That's because they're living off ours.
If these Jindals and Palins and other anti-income tax Governors were serious they would refuse to take penny one from the federal government that they didn't send to the federal government.
I'd LOVE if Alaska, which gets more than $2 in federal money for each $1 of federal taxes paid, were to ship us a few bucks to make up for the lack of federal spending in our state. And if Jindal doesn't want stimulus money I've got a bridge a few blocks from my house that needs to be repaired we can spend it on. My neighbor works in construction and just lost his job after sending 45 cents of every federal tax dollar he paid out of state.
Hell, if the New Jersey Republicans want to balance the New Jersey budget all they have to do is call their brethren in welfare states like Alaska, Wyoming and Louisiana and get our federal tax dollars back. But they won't because for all their screeching on the issue of the federal government and taxes they believe in the system just as much as Democrats do.
The national Republicans are hypocrites. It's something that happens as soon as they get there, just like Leonard Lance who says he is going to vote against bills to fund the Green Brook Flood Control and repairs to Route 22 but is glad to take credit for the money.
When is the media going to start really taking a look at this trend? Lectures from an unwed teen mother on the importance of abstinence? Harangues on federal spending from governors who demand more than their share? Blustering on the evils of marriage equality from ministers who pay gay prostitutes?
You'd think that at some point enough would be enough.
With the news that New York State has exhausted their tax credit for film, and projects jumping ship to other states and Canada, it's time New Jersey increased its film tax credit.
Currently, New Jersey credits 20% of a production's qualified expenses. However, the program is capped at $10 million in credits a year. This puts our state at a competitive disadvantage to other neighboring states, and fails to recognize that much of the talent and labor that fuels New York's film industry lives in New Jersey. New York stopping their tax credit is going to cost New Jersey residents their jobs.
One of the most consistent defenses of Walmart is that it has succeeded because it simply delivered what customers wanted and that if you don't like it, just don't shop there. But Firedoglake has a great piece up this week that explains how even the non-Walmart shoppers are not only affected by Walmart, but are actually paying in many ways to subsidize it:
