Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:05:58 PM EDT
|
| Before reading this diary, consider what role you think a U.S. senator should have in securing federal money for her or his state. Should senators act as passive conduits for federal dollars and only allocate what is necessary for their state, or should they actively lobby for federal dollars for their state, using influence, power, and committee positions to secure this money -- especially when their state receives disproportionate amount of tax dollars in return from tax dollars sent to the federal government? No matter your political philosophy on this question, the fact is that New Jersey receives the least amount of federal tax dollars returned (scroll to New Jersey) from money sent to the federal government.
Currently, New Jersey is dead last in terms of tax dollar expenditures to the federal government vs. tax dollars returned. In other words, as The Tax Foundation states
New Jersey taxpayers receive less federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid than any other state. On one hand, this is somewhat understandable. The federal income tax relies on progressive system of taxation, which means those with higher income pay a higher percentage of net income, in turn, to the government. New Jersey consistently ranks as one of the richest states in the country, so there would be some structural fiscal reasons why a state with such high income residents would pay more to the government; that said, Maryland, one of the richest states in the country, is consistently in the top 20 for federal dollars returned on taxes, and Alaska, another rich state, also receives very high returns on taxes spent versus taxes returned.
This disproportionate amount of tax money returned to N.J. is a major reason why the state has such a problem with high property taxes. Many a policy expert and economist have stated that, if N.J. received more tax dollars back from the federal government, our property taxes and fiscal health could be bettered. According to one award-winning journalist
Even a small bump in federal money could help close an estimated $2 billion budget deficit for the upcoming fiscal year, giving the legislature a potential source for property tax relief. One could say, and there have been analysts who claim this, that the Republicans in Washington, when they were in power, were punishing N.J. for being such a Democratic state by not sending us federal money; but the disparity existed during the Clinton years into the Bush years, putting a hole in this theory of deliberate malfeasance. Both during the Clinton and the Bush years, the Fiscal Year Budget (FYB), which is then sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee, has been incredibly unkind to our state. |
| Martin :: Should Federal Tax Dollars Returned to N.J. Be a Senate Primary Issue? |
| What does this have to do with the U.S. senate campaign, you might say? Again, I return to the previous mention of political philosophy and whether you think it incumbent upon a senator to secure funds for his or her state -- and whether such a measurement is a fair and just way to judge a senator on effectiveness. If we take the laissez-faire approach to government, then capital works via its own internal logic, outside of the purview of regulatory government and interventionist strategies. Money goes where capital is invested and so do the federal expenditures. From this view, Sen. Lautenberg is not culpable in the least for N.J. having the worst expenditure-to-return taxation in the country, since capital works via its own logic.
If, on the other hand, you view a senator's job as partly to procure funds for their state and to use their influence to get those funds when the FYB shortchanges that state, then Lautenberg has not delivered the goods for his home state when it comes to federal funding. Lautenberg himself justified his running for senate in 1982 by mentioning that N.J. wasn't getting its fair share of public funding, as Dick Zimmer to reminded voters in a recent campaign stop; yet federal funds from state income taxes have gone down since Lautenberg took office nearly 26 years ago. Lautenberg currently sits on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, which allocates money to states in accordance with the president's budget; Alaska senator Ted Stevens, head during the Republican-controlled senate, was able to secure many funds for his state while serving on this committee. Lautenberg was also on this committee and on the Senate Budget Committee during the Clinton years. We were still at or near dead last during his entire tenure as U.S. senator.
Part of the issue here is influence, of course, and the level of influence a given U.S. senator has. Many of the cushy committee positions go to Democrats and Republicans from difficult districts; they get money for their state or district, and they get re-elected in return. I don't imagine that anyone will claim, though, that, in committee positions or in political capital, clout and stature, that Sen. Lautenberg is a extremely powerful influence in Washington. And for those who are citing the "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" justification for supporting Lautenberg, the fact that N.J. is dead last in tax money returned -- which puts further pressure on the state and localities instead to procure funds via local property taxes -- should at least give pause for making such an argumentative claim. From my vantage, besides voting in the best interests for the state and country, a U.S. senator is compelled to secure funds for their state, and this is a fair measure of a given senator's effectiveness and influence in Washington. The question that I think voters should ask is: Will Lautenberg be able to secure more federal dollars for the state in, hypothetically, his one remaining term as senator, or would a Senator Andrews be able to build stature and influence enough to secure federal funds/return of tax dollars expended at a higher level than the current one?
Enough of my prattling, though: What do you think, Blue Jersey? Should current levels of federal tax dollars returned to the state be a fair measure, or criterion, for justifying a senator's reelection or not? |
|
Featured Stories  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
